Wednesday, October 28, 2026

The Art of the Con

Though I attended two conventions recently, I only refereed events at one of them – CleriCon. At Gamehole Con, I was there solely as a participant, playing in several games run by others. Partly, I did this out of superstition. The first time I signed up to referee at GHC was back in 2019, when I was hit by a car the day before my flight was scheduled to head to Wisconsin. Though I was able to literally) walk away from the accident with only some superficial lacerations and a non-displaced fracture of my fibula, I was forbidden from traveling for at least 48 hours out of concern that I might have suffered a concussion. Fortunately, I hadn't, but I was also unable to attend the con that year or run any of the events I'd signed up for. The incident left me with a strange worry that, were I ever to offer to run sessions at Gamehole Con again, misfortune might befall me.

CleriCon is a completely different matter. The reason I discovered the con in the first place was that I was trying – ultimately in vain, alas – to start up a small RPG gathering here in Toronto. In looking online for resources to aid me in my Quixotic quest, I learned about the existence of CleriCon, then entering its third year. As soon as I learned about it, I immediately offered to run some games there and did so without any injury to myself. So emboldened, I offered to do the same again this year, refereeing sessions on both Friday night and Saturday morning.

Though both sessions were well received and everyone involved had fun, it was the Saturday morning session that, in my opinion, was the better of the two. On that occasion, I ran the first level of my Dwimmermount megadungeon and provided the players not just with pregenerated characters but a very specific and narrow goal, namely, the location of the Dwarven cemetery reputed to be somewhere on that level. The players were able to do some exploration, fight some monsters, and eventually discover the cemetery, all in the course of the time slot. It was pretty much perfect.

On Friday night, though, I ran them through the revised version of The Cursed Chateau that I've been working on throughout this year (not as much as I'd hoped but that's another story). Once again, I gave the players pregenerated characters and a goal. However, the goal this time – determine what happened to previous groups of adventurers who'd entered the chateau and not returned – was much too broad. Combined with the fact that the adventure includes lots of random elements so that each playthrough is intentionally different and it was pretty much guaranteed the players wouldn't complete their mission in the time allotted.

Now, as I said, everyone enjoyed themselves. Indeed, some of the players from Friday night returned on Saturday morning to play with me again. Even so, I personally felt as if The Cursed Chateau session was not quite as "complete" or satisfying as the Dwimmermount one the next day. The former simply ended when the clock ran out, while the latter came to a conclusion that made sense, if you can understand the difference. In fact, the Dwimmermount session made so much sense that, while I was having lunch with some of the players later, one of them asked me how I'd arranged things in such a way to ensure the session ended on a "high note." I confessed that it was pure chance – a combination of good choices on the part of the players and the luck of the dice. I'd love to take credit for how well the session ended, but I can't.

This got me to thinking about what makes a good convention scenario and how best to write one. I most definitely plan to run more sessions at next year's CleriCon and, despite my superstition, I am also planning to submit sessions to next year's Gamehole Con (likely playtests of both the second edition of Thousand Suns and Secrets of sha-Arthan). But with only four hours to play, I find myself pondering how to ensure more satisfying sessions and fewer that just peter out when the time elapses. I had so much fun with the games I played this year that I'd like to do whatever I can to increase the odds that my own sessions will be just as enjoyable for potential players.

So, if anyone out there is more experienced with writing and refereeing con events, I'd love to hear what you have to say about this. For that matter, I'd love simply to hear the observations of anyone who regularly plays con games. What makes a good convention scenario? Are there any common elements that you think increase the odds of their being fun for everyone? Any insights you can offer in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Tuesday, October 27, 2026

Post-Con Thoughts

As I've said innumerable times on this blog over the years, I am not a regular attendee of gaming conventions and yet, over the last couple of weeks, I've attended not one but two of them, specifically Gamehole Con in Madison, Wisconsin and CleriCon in Glen Williams, Ontario. 

I've attended both before and greatly enjoyed them, hence my return this year. Even so, my attendance, even after all these years, is somewhat contrary to my shy and introverted nature. I've never been all that comfortable in large gatherings full of strangers and that hasn't really changed since I have gotten older. What has changed is that I more fully recognize the need to leave my comfort zone and be social with people I previously didn't know. 

That's, frankly, one of the joys of conventions. After all, everyone attending the con is there because they share one thing in common: a love of roleplaying games. As such, you're probably more than halfway toward moving beyond any social awkwardness you might otherwise have with strangers. At least. that's what I have found and it was no less true this year, when I met lots of delightful fellow gamers at both conventions, to say nothing of the many others I already met and looked forward to seeing again.

Of the two, Gamehole Con is the larger, with an attendance of more than 6000 people. That's still much smaller than bigger, more well-known cons, like GenCon or Origins. 6000 attendees is, in my opinion, much more "human sized." I never felt lost or overwhelmed by the numbers of people present, but there were enough of them that there was a good variety of options when it came to events or just discussions in the convention center. 

Among the many people whom I met or spent time with were:

  • Michael Curtis: Old school blogger and director of product development for DCC RPG.
  • Joseph Goodman, head of Goodman Games and all-around great guy.
  • Matt Hildebrand: Goodman Games' art director and a frequent collaborator of mine.
  • Kenneth Hite: Renaissance man and master raconteur.
  • Jason Hobbs: Host of the Hobbs & Friends and Random Screed podcasts.
  • Brendan La Salle, writer for Goodman Games.
  • Sean Kelley: Podcaster and fun guy.
  • Jim Kitchen: RPG enthusiast and auctioneer.
  • Doug Kovacs, Artist extraordinaire.
  • Bill Meinhard: One of the most significant collectors of old school RPG materials in the world.
  • Jon Peterson: Author of Playing at the World and probably the premier historian of hobby.
  • Victor Raymond: An old and dear friend of mine, as well as my co-host on the defunct Halls of Blue Illumination podcast.
  • Harley Stroh: One of the best writers in Goodman Games' impressive stable of writers.
  • Ronin Wong: Actor and fellow lover of Holmes Basic. 
You might have noticed a lot of people associated with Goodman Games in my list. That's because this year marked the 25th anniversary of the company, which, therefore, had a sizable presence at Gamehole Con this year. I've long been an admirer of both Goodman Games and the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, so it was great having the chance to spend so much time with its staff and freelancers. I also was fortunate enough to play in a DCC RPG adventure refereed by Harley Stroh and Doug Kovacs. I had a blast playing a time-lost Buck Rogers-like space hero who'd been summoned by a wizard to act as her bodyguard. Later, I played in another DCC adventure inspired by the video game Deep Rock Galactic.

CleriCon, by contrast, was a much more modest affair. There were only 10 tables, spread across two buildings, with each table having 6-8 players and a referee. In many ways, it reminded me of the "games days" that the public libraries used to put on during my youth, which are among my fondest memories of those days. The con began with a shared dinner on Friday night, followed by a single session of play. On Saturday, there were three sessions and one more on Sunday. I refereed a couple of sessions, both using Old School Essentials. One was a rework of The Cursed Chateau and the other was a dungeon crawl on the first level of Dwimmermount. Both sessions went well and everyone involved had a fun time. 

One of the best parts about CleriCon was how local it was. Though there were a few attendees who came from far away – one traveled all the way from Alaska! – most of us were from southern Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area. One I met for the first time during a layover in Detroit on my way to Gamehole Con and we reconnected at CleriCon. Toronto is a big and often alienating city, so it's great to meet up with gamers from the area and be reminded that there are a lot more of us than it might appear. It's my understanding that the success of CleriCon has inspired at least one person to try something similar in another southern Ontario city next month. I think that's great and hope that it might encourage others to do the same.

At both conventions, I was told more than once that I ought to consider attending other conventions. Though I'm uncommitted on this question, I am thinking about it. The difficulty is timing and, honestly, the cost of it. Air travel is getting increasingly expensive, never mind the additional costs of lodging, food, etc. One of the benefits of smaller, more local cons, like CleriCon, is that I don't need to think about such things. On the other hand, there's a unique joy to traveling to another place and meeting up with people from all across the continent. I have so many online friends whom I've never met in person. It'd be wonderful to have the chance to do so at a common location, which is why I continue to ponder this matter.

If anyone has any thoughts of their own regarding conventions worth visiting, I'd love to hear your perspective. I had so much fun at Gamehole Con and CleriCon that part of me wishes I had some more RPG gatherings to look forward to in the next few months. 

Friday, October 23, 2026

Con Season (Part II)

I've been back from Gamehole Con for a few days and am now preparing to attend another, local convention, CleriCon. I attended for the first time last year and had a great time. I'll be running a couple of games there, as well as playing in a couple. I'll give a full report of my exploits at both conventions next week, when I've had a chance to catch my breath.

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

Con Season (Part I)

Tomorrow morning, I'm off to Gamehole Con in Madison, Wisconsin, the first of two conventions I'll be attending in the next few weeks. As I did last year, I'll write a post or two about my experiences at the convention. I always find that attending in-person events like this reinvigorates me and, truthfully, I could use an infusion of energy these days. 

If, by any chance, any readers are attending GHC, I hope we'll have the opportunity to meet. It's great hanging out with my fellow gamers in the flesh, as I've discussed before. The Internet is a wonderful tool, but nothing can beat sitting around a table with people you can see and spending a few hours rolling dice and roleplaying with them. It's a reminder of where this hobby began and what I still like most about it.

More next week! Wish me luck.

Friday, October 2, 2026

One Year Gone

While yesterday marked the commemoration of the birth of one of the hobby's founders, today marks a rather different milestone: one year since the conclusion of my House of Worms campaign. That's small potatoes by comparison, but it's significant to me and the six players who were there for its wrap-up, two of whom having been there for the entirety of its ten and a half year run (and several others for the bulk of that time). 

I've had campaigns end before, of course, but House of Worms was the first time in many, many years that I ended one deliberately rather than watching it sputter out due to outside considerations. That's what happened to the Barrett's Raiders Twilight: 2000 campaign after three years of play, as you may recall. Although I don't have any bitterness about the cessation of Barrett's Raiders, I was a bit disappointed that the campaign didn't last longer. I had a lot of fun refereeing that game, my frustrations with the Free League version of the game to the contrary. In another universe, Barrett's Raiders might well have last as long as House of Worms (and served as the launching point for a follow-up 2300 AD campaign – a long-held dream of mine).

I'm glad that House of Worms ended on its own terms. However, I'd be lying if I were to say that I don't look back on this anniversary with a certain amount of melancholy. Part of that is simply that, over the course of a decade, I'd grown very fond of the characters in that campaign, not to mention the setting of Tékumel itself. I really came to know them all and, if it's not to strange to say, I miss spending time with them each week. 

The other part of it is that, as I predicted several months before the conclusion actually came, House of Worms casts a long shadow. Even if I tried, I doubt I will ever top its wondrous denouement. House of Worms truly was the campaign of a lifetime, something I'll likely remember for the rest of my life. Even with smaller ambitions, how does one follow up on that? What do you do after you've achieved something so remarkable that you and the people involved in its continue to talk about it a year after it ended? I can't help but wonder if this is what Olympic athletes must feel after winning a gold medal. 

This hasn't kept me from starting a new campaign with most of the House of Worms crew. The Dark Between the Stars campaign is now just shy of a year old and it remains very enjoyable. It's also – deliberately – a very different campaign from House of Worms in many ways. For one, it's a space opera rather than fantasy and the cast of characters is quite different, so the dynamic isn't in any way comparable to House of Worms. The Dark Between the Stars is still very much its own thing and a good and fun thing at that, for which I am grateful, but it's impossible to deny that, playing with many of the same people each week and on the same day and time, my thoughts often turn to House of Worms.

It's frustrating, because I am unambiguously proud of the House of Worms campaign. Playing it consistently for so long and then bringing it to a satisfying conclusion is a genuine achievement. I suppose that, on some level, I simply wish that it wasn't such an achievement that I can't help but compare everything else I do to it. That's not fair for a multitude of reasons, yet I often find myself doing just that – human nature, I suppose.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I continue to enjoy both The Dark Between the Stars and my unnamed Dolmenwood campaign, which will mark its second anniversary next month. I hope that both of them will last as long as House of Worms did, though I have no expectations about this. I've refereed and played in enough RPG campaigns over the last four decades to know how unlikely that is. I've only ever achieved it once and, from what I gather, that's quite an unusual experience for which I am grateful. 

I just wish I could free myself from the sense that I'll never referee a campaign as good as House of Worms.

Thursday, October 1, 2026

Dave Arneson and a New Kind of Game

While I remain focused on finishing the second edition of Thousand Suns – hence my continued absence from posting here regularly – I was nevertheless determined that I would not forget to commemorate the birthday of Dave Arneson this year, as I have too often in the past. Rather than rehearse why I keep erring in this particular fashion, I thought it might instead be more fruitful to look at just one of the many reasons that Arneson deserves to be remembered not only on this, the 79th anniversary of his birth.

Whereas Gary Gygax left behind an enormous body of writing through which we can directly encounter his ideas and contributions to the hobby, Arneson's legacy is more elusive. He wrote and published, of course, but I would argue that, rather than what he wrote, his greatest contributions to the history of the hobby happened before any rules had been written down. They happened at his table, refereeing Blackmoor and many other games with his friends in the Twin Cities. In fact, I'll go one step further and suggest that one of Arneson's greatest contributions to the hobby was his way of thinking about what a game could be.

When Arneson began the medieval fantasy campaign that became Blackmoor, there were obviously no roleplaying games as we know them today. There were wargames, some of which connected individual battles or engagements to a larger conflict. There were also David Wesely's remarkable Braunstein experiments in which players took on individual roles and pursued their own, sometimes conflicting, objectives under the supervision of a referee. There were also innumerable fantasy stories to draw upon, not to mention many other raw materials from which roleplaying games would eventually be fashioned. But there wasn't a rulebook explaining how to put all these things together – not that that stopped Arneson from doing it anyway.

Looking back more than half a century later, it's very easy to see the development of roleplaying games as a succession of innovations, like individual characters, experience points and levels, dungeons, and so on. A lot of work has been done by people more knowledgeable than I about who first introduced which element into the mix and when. I find such questions interesting, as anyone who's read this blog should know well. Even so, I sometimes wonder whether concentrating too heavily on them causes us to miss something more fundamental about Arneson's achievement, namely, that Blackmoor wasn't simply a collection of game mechanics. Rather, it was a place.

Week after week, players returned to "the weird enclave" in "a nice bog" between the Great Kingdom and the fearsome Egg of Coot. Their characters explored and fought in it, schemed within it, and, perhaps most significantly, changed it through their actions. Things happened when they ventured into the dungeons beneath Castle Blackmoor, but the dungeons weren't the whole game. Outside, there was a world filled with rulers, factions, and monsters. In Blackmoor, player action had long-term consequences and Arneson used those consequences as starting points for later sessions. In this way, Blackmoor, this imaginary place, accumulated a history that nobody, not even Arneson, could have known beforehand.

From the vantage point of the present, that sounds utterly ordinary, because it's fundamental to the way many of us understand roleplaying games today. Consequently, that makes it difficult for us to recognize how extraordinary it would have been at the time. Consider that a "traditional" game is entirely bounded by its rules. Even a complicated wargame attempts to specify beforehand what can happen and how it is to be resolved. Arneson's Blackmoor was founded on something rather different. This was a game whose boundaries could expand whenever the players attempted something nobody had yet anticipated.

The referee describes the world and portrays its inhabitants. He knows things the players don't. He also decides what happens when the rules provide no obvious answer. More importantly, though, he takes the unexpected things the players do and incorporates them into the evolving world they're creating together. Their successes, failures, schemes, mistakes, and ridiculous ideas all become facts with which everyone must subsequently contend.  In this conception of play, the rules are indispensable, but they are not sovereign. Rather, they are tools used by the referee and players to interact with an imagined world that is always larger than the procedures used to describe it.

This is Dave Arneson's lasting legacy, a conception of the referee and the campaign that, while born out of miniatures wargaming, transcended them. I get the impression from accounts of the early Blackmoor campaign that Arneson was constantly tinkering. His conception of both the rules and the campaign itself was in a regular state of flux, which only makes sense. He was doing something new and thus could not possess a finished theory of roleplaying games. He had a campaign to run for his friends and, if one of them wanted to try something unexpected, he needed some way of determining what happened next.

The hobby now possesses more rules than Arneson could possibly have imagined in the early 1970s. There are systems covering nearly every genre and style of play, some of them refined over the course decades. There are also innumerable books explaining nearly every aspect about running RPG campaigns that you could possibly imagine (and some you probably couldn't). Yet, all that accumulated knowledge can sometimes obscure the beautifully simple insight at the heart of what Arneson and his players discovered: you don't need to know beforehand what the campaign will become.

What you do need is a place. You need some interesting things happening there and players willing to interact with them. And, yes, you do need rules to resolve the things you can anticipate, though you also need a referee willing to make judgments about the things you can't. After all, the characters will go somewhere you didn't expect. They will become interested in an NPC you invented five minutes earlier and ignore the one you thought would attract their attention. They will hatch plans for which there are no rules. When that happens, you roll some dice, think about the consequences, and then bring those consequences back to the table at the next session. Slowly, almost without anyone noticing it, you're bringing a world into being.

That's the part of Dave Arneson's legacy I find most worth remembering on his birthday. Blackmoor demonstrated that a game did not have to be entirely contained within its rules. There would always be something beyond the edge of the map, something the referee had not yet imagined, and that nevertheless would interest the players in a way no one had foreseen. This is the kind of game that can only grow through play. Dave Arneson's greatest contribution was discovering a new kind of game, one in which the referee creates a world, sets it in motion, and then relinquishes control over where that world will go. The players act and the referee responds; the world changes as a result. Everyone, including the referee, finds out what happens next.

Happy birthday, Dave! Thanks for introducing us to a new kind of game, one that's held my attention for more than four decades and that I expect will continue to do so for many years to come.