Pretenders to the Throne

Like most people involved in the hobby of roleplaying, Dungeons & Dragons was the first RPG I ever played. Furthermore, it's probably the RPG I've played the most over the decades, even though it's not my favorite. I do like it and would even go so far as to say that most versions of it are fun to play. This isn't a controversial opinion. Indeed, if history is any guide, most roleplayers feel similarly, because some version of Dungeons & Dragons has been the most popular, most played, and most profitable roleplaying game pretty much continuously since 1974. 

I say "pretty much," because there have been times and places when this was not case, but most of these instances have been unusual in one way or another. I was thinking about this topic for reasons I'll explain in an upcoming post, but my present point is that, with only a handful of exceptions, D&D has always been the King of Roleplaying Games. That was true in 1974 and it's still true in 2024. That's a truth that a lot of partisans of other RPGs don't like to hear. While I'm sympathetic to their feelings, I'm not going to pretend as if it's not the case that D&D's reign has not been a largely secure one.

There I go again with my quibbling adverbs – largely. I'm old enough to remember several moments in time when it seemed as if the fortunes of Dungeons & Dragons were on the downswing and another roleplaying game was on the ascent. Whether that was actually the case is another matter. For now, though, I'd simply like to focus on three occasions when it seemed to me – perhaps mistakenly – as if D&D was in danger of being pushed aside by a competitor. 

The first time was in the mid-80s, once I had become a subscriber to White Dwarf. One of the things I very quickly noticed was that the magazine frequently carried content for Chaosium's RuneQuest, then in its second edition. This was in stark contrast to Dragon magazine, the gaming periodical with which I was most familiar, which scarcely ever included articles, let alone adventures, for RQ. At that time, AD&D was in its late 1e doldrums, so I took the appearance of so much RuneQuest material in White Dwarf as evidence that its star was on the rise. I would eventually learn that this was mostly a British phenomenon, where RQ's popularity met or even exceeded that of D&D. So far as I know, this never extended to North America, but I still started contemplating the possibility that Dungeons & Dragons might one day be toppled from its position as King of the Hill. 

The next time I saw what I thought was a serious challenger to D&D was about a decade later, in the mid-1990s. That's when White Wolf's "World of Darkness" games were all the rage, particularly the first game in that line, Vampire: the Masquerade. While I didn't get into any of "World of Darkness" games until a few years later – I'd eventually even write for a few of them – I was nevertheless quite familiar with them, thanks in large part to friends who were regular players. What I learned from them was that Vampire and its companion games had proven popular with many people who'd otherwise not played RPGs. The "World of Darkness" was bringing in new players and those players were very devoted to it. It probably helped, too, that Dungeons & Dragons (and indeed TSR itself) was in the midst of another period of doldrums, which made White Wolf's offerings seem even more vital by comparison.

Finally, there was Paizo's Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Pathfinder came out shortly after Wizards of the Coast announced that the next edition of Dungeons & Dragons – Fourth Edition – would not, unlike its immediate predecessor, being an "open" game. Instead, it would use a much more restrictive licensing scheme. Likewise, the new edition's rules would be rather different from those in 3e, making backward compatibility an issue. For a lot of fans of the Third Edition, this was dreadful news and Paizo saw an opportunity to serve them by producing its own version of 3e, which it called Pathfinder. Pathfinder proved quite successful and, for a brief time, appeared to have snatched the RPG crown from Dungeons & Dragons. Ultimately, that proved to have been an illusion, but that doesn't change the fact that, for a brief moment, I felt otherwise.

In the end, none of the aforementioned roleplaying games were truly successful in knocking D&D off its pedestal, at least not for long. In each case, the plausibility of this belief rested on the same thing: the perceived weakness of D&D. Whenever the current edition of Dungeons & Dragons was in its late, decadent phase, disenchantment with the direction of the game or the perception that it was on the wrong track made me feel that some other RPG might have a shot at the Throne of Gygax. That's not to say that none of these games enjoyed a genuine popularity boost when D&D was "weak." In the case of Vampire the Masquerade, I'm pretty sure it did enjoy a period of wild popularity and good sales and that might well have been true of Pathfinder, too (RuneQuest in the UK is more of an edge case). Yet, for all that, D&D always came roaring back, its place as the hobby's top dog secure for another decade or so. 

I can't predict the future, so if another roleplaying game will ever succeed in displacing Dungeons & Dragons, I have no idea. Judging by the past, however, it seems quite unlikely, which is why, for good or ill, in most people's minds, tabletop RPGs will always be synonymous with D&D.

Grumble, Grumble

The very first post of this blog attempts to provide a definition of "grognard," both in its historical context and in its latter-day usage among wargamers and, by extension, roleplayers. I wrote that post more than a decade ago and, while I stand by what I wrote all those years ago, my thinking on the matter has evolved a little bit. This evolution was occasioned by several things, including the general mellowing that comes with age. However, some of that evolution comes from reflecting on a phenomenon I've observed over the past year or two, namely fans of Dungeons & Dragons 3e (or even Pathfinder) referring to themselves, unironically, as grognards.

Now, on the face of it, this seems absurd. After all, "grognard" was often used as a term of derision in RPG circles, one directed at stick-in-the-mud holdouts who weren't enthusiastic about the latest edition of a game. My recollection is that the term was thrown about a lot during the heyday of 3e. Anyone who objected to ascending armor class or the loosening of class restrictions was a doubleplusungood wrongthinker and roundly mocked. That some of the very same people who once used the word to ridicule others would now be applying it to themselves is bizarre, right?

Even a few years ago, I would have thought so. Now, I'm not so censorious. As I said, my thoughts on the matter have evolved. What I would say is that grognardism, for lack of a better word, is not about believing that older games are better than newer ones. Rather, it's about believing that just because something is old, it's not therefore bad. Put more positively, grognardism promotes the idea that fun games remain fun regardless of when they were published. There's nothing necessarily wrong with new games, especially if you genuinely enjoy them, but the same is equally true of older game, with "older" in this case simply meaning any version that is not the current one. 

I still have harsh words for neophilia, a vice closely tied to consumerism in our society and strongly encouraged by game publishers. But I can't muster any opprobrium for players of an edition later than my own preferred one who have chosen to embrace the term "grognard" in reference to themselves. 3e is now two decades old; there have in the years since been two more editions of Dungeons & Dragons. Choosing to stick with 3e because you have had fun with it and continue to do so is, I think, praiseworthy, even if it doesn't align with my own predilections. 

I hold out hope that, as time marches on, more gamers might begin to recognize that those of us who haven't adopted the new shiny aren't doing so out of retrograde contrariness but because we sincerely prefer an earlier version – and that those preferences can be and probably are rational ones. This entire blog is dedicated to articulating the reasons for my own preferences, as well as celebrating the games with which I have had – and continue to have – fun. I have never expected anyone to share my preferences or be convinced by my reasons for holding them. That was never my purpose, though I do hope I've in a small way contributed to a better understanding of the unique pleasures of what we now call "old school" roleplaying games and the culture that gave birth to them. I'll still grumble, of course, but I never wanted that to be all I do. 

Pathfinder Online

I've gotten quite a large number of emails from folks asking me my opinion about the recent announcement that Paizo had licensed its Pathfinder Roleplaying Game setting, Golarion, to a new company, Goblin Works, for the creation of a massive, multiplayer, online game. Truth be told, I don't know what to think. Aside from the fact that I don't play Pathfinder, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the world of video games, let alone MMOs, I've played a few MMOs over the years -- I was once quite an avid World of Warcraft player -- but so are a lot of gamers out there. So, take anything I say here with a huge grain of salt.

Firstly and most obviously, there's the current state of the MMO genre. Everywhere I look, MMOs are going free-to-play, which suggests that it's getting harder and harder to convince gamers to shell out $15 a month for a subscription. World of Warcraft seems to be the only major MMO that hasn't gone completely free-to-play and even it has a rather open-ended free trial (to level 20). Now, it may well be that many of these free-to-play MMOs are still profitable. Indeed, I suppose they'd have to be on some level or else they'd have shut down by now. Even so, could a new MMO based on Pathfinder's setting turn enough profit in a crowded marketplace to be viable?

This brings me to my second thought: Pathfinder and Golarion. From what little that has been said so far, it would appear that, despite its name, one of the big selling points of this MMO will be its setting. In part that's probably because the OGL does not cover video games, meaning that Paizo can't use many (most?) aspects of its D20-derive ruleset in a video game. Or at least that's my understanding. I suppose it's possible that there's some way around this or that I've misunderstood the OGL all these years, but I don't think so. That means that Pathfinder Online won't be using the Pathfinder RPG system but something else, whatever that may be. Now I like Golarion as well as the next guy. It's a very well-done "generic but flavorful" fantasy setting that includes tons of terrific nods both to the hobby's past and to its pulp forebears. But is it interesting enough in itself to drive interest in this game?

So what is special about this MMO? According to Lisa Stevens:

It's going to focus around the characters you create, in a world that will grow out of your interactions, developing the way you choose to develop it. It takes place in the River Kingdoms of Golarion, with our own Kingmaker Adventure Path providing some of the inspiration. There will be an overarching storyline, and dungeons aplenty to explore, but where Pathfinder Online is going to thrive is in the ability of each of you to leave your mark on the world. Do you want to build a castle that you own and control? Go for it. Want to start a town and rally folks to your banner? Do that. Do you want to ally with the neighboring villages to form a new nation—or perhaps wage war on them instead? The choice is yours. Want to become the most feared bandit in the River Kingdoms? The path is available. Want to become the greatest armorer that Golarion has ever seen? All it takes is hard work. If you can imagine doing something in the world of Golarion, we want you to be able to do that in Pathfinder Online.

That makes it sound to be me as if Pathfinder Online is going to be somewhat sandbox-y but with a big dash of EVE Online's "fun with economics" model thrown in. No one should be surprised by this possibility, since Ryan Dancey is attached to Pathfinder Online and he worked for EVE's publisher, CCP, for the last few years. Could it be that Dancey thinks he's found a way to translate EVE's inexplicable popularity into a fantasy setting?

Finally, the fact that Pathfinder Online is being produced by a new company, Goblinworks, ought to give anyone pause. Creating a new MMO (or indeed any video game) isn't easy, so there's always a worry when you see a startup company taking on a big project like this. It's true that Dancey has experience at CCP, as does Mark Kalmes, who's also involved. But you need a talented and experienced team of people to launch an MMO and I wonder if Goblinworks will be able to assemble one.

Those are my initial thoughts based on very little information. As ever, I wish the Paizo crew all the best and hope this proves a worthwhile avenue for them, but I have my doubts.

Pathfinder Beginner Box

So, apparently, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has released its Beginner Box, which is Paizo's answer to the Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set, I reviewed last year. As you may recall, I was pretty disappointed in the Starter Set, which, my feelings about D&D IV aside, still felt too much like a gimmicky preview product than a true introductory-level set. I honestly have no idea if the Beginner Box is any better in this regard, though the whispers I'm hearing from various parties suggests that it is.

In the final analysis, this doesn't matter much to me personally, since I'm not a Pathfinder player, but I do like many of the folks working at Paizo and wish them every success in the world. So, if anyone out there has gotten hold of a copy of the Beginner Box and wants to share their thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I'm not in the market for a new intro game, as I've already got several I'm quite happy with, but I'm always interested in hearing if a company has finally managed to make a basic RPG that comes close to competing with what TSR did three decades ago.

Black Destroyer

Earlier in the week, I spoke glowingly about what a great gift to the old school community the D20 SRD is and I mean that. Of course, the SRD's not a perfect document; there are some oddities in its contents. Many classic AD&D monsters, like the mind flayer, the beholder, and the carrion crawler, were omitted and, while that's annoying, it's also understandable, since these are all original to the game.

Also among the monsters the SRD did not include was the displacer beast, pictured to the right in an illustration by Dave Trampier. Though it could be argued that the displacer beast is strongly associated with Dungeons & Dragons, it certainly cannot be argued that it is original to it. As any science fiction fan worthy of the name could tell you, the "displacer beast" is just a rip-off of the coeurl, which first appeared in A.E. van Vogt's 1939 short story "Black Destroyer" and later incorporated into the 1950 fix-up novel, The Voyage of the Space Beagle, which is where I first encountered the creature.

Because the SRD lacks a displacer beast, retro-clone publishers have had to make up their own versions, like Labyrinth Lord's phase tiger, to fill the void. Amusingly (but unsurprisingly), Paizo decided to circumvent the whole problem by going straight to the source and getting permission to include the coeurl itself in Part 4 their Legacy of Fire adventure path. There's a note of thanks to the Ashley Grayson Literary Agency, which represents the Van Vogt Estate, as well as explicit mentions of the stories in which the coeurl appeared, in that volume of Pathfinder.

Even though I have less than zero interest in playing the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, when I hear about stuff like this, it's hard not to admire the guys and gals at Paizo. They not only know but honor the literary heritage of Dungeons & Dragons. Their love for pulp fantasy and science fiction is palpable. Would that it were more widespread.

REVIEW: Song of the Beast-Gods

As regular readers of this blog ought to know, I haven't counted myself a fan, let alone a player, of D&D III for many years now. Indeed, it was my dissatisfaction with that game that brought me back to the games I played in my youth and that I'm playing today. Consequently, I haven't been keeping a close eye on events in the D20 world; it's generally only when someone brings one of its products to my attention that I take notice. It's rare still that I find myself enjoying a D20 product enough that I wish there were some way I could work it into my OD&D campaign -- but that's exactly how I felt after I read Morten Braten's adventure, Song of the Beast-Gods.

This should come as no surprise, since I'd already read and enjoyed Braten's previous adventure The Spider-God's Bride, which, like the present one, is written for the D20 system and set in a fantasy world called Xoth. Xoth is a fascinating setting, calling to mind both Howard's Hyborian Age and Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique, suffused with hints of eldritch horror. It's almost tailor-made for the kinds of pulp fantasy adventures I most enjoy. This fact probably goes a long way toward explaining why I found it easy to overlook the D20 stat blocks and related mechanics and see Song of the Beast-Gods for what it is: a fun sword-and-sorcery adventure for characters of 2nd to 3rd levels.

Before discussing the contents of this adventure, allow me to briefly discuss its appearance and presentation. Like its predecessor, Song of the Beast-Gods uses a two-column layout for its dense text. I occasionally found it slightly hard to read, but that probably says more about my aging eyes than the layout itself. Maps, important details, and notes to the referee are highlighted through the use of boxes. Titles and headers use evocative -- but legible -- fonts that contribute greatly to the pulp fantasy feel of the adventure, as does the artwork, which is a mix of original pieces and public domain engravings. All in all, Song of the Beast-Gods is attractive and well put together, something I find particularly impressive because it's the product of a one-man operation, with Braten acting as writer, cartographer, and graphic designer.

The adventure itself concerns events in the city of Khadis, where, until two decades ago, the Great Red Sphinx "was placated every year with offerings of treasure and blood." That all changed, when the High King of Yar-Ammon instituted a religious revolution that overthrew the old gods, such as the Great Red Sphinx, and replaced them with a previously unknown deity, the First One. To cement this reformation, the petty king of Khadis sacrificed his eldest daughter, who was being groomed as a priestess in the old faith, to the First One, an act that reverberates even unto the present day, when the player characters make their appearance ...

It's difficult to say more about the adventure without spoiling its secrets. Suffice it to say that events two decades ago did not go quite the way that history records them. This provides an opening for the PCs to become enmeshed in several plots within the city of Khadis that have far-ranging repercussions. What I most liked about Song of the Beast-Gods was that it is, at its heart, a location-based adventure. Certainly, there are plots, but these plots are the plans of various people seeking to take advantage of the situation in Khadis rather than a foreordained sequence of events the referee is expected to follow. Thus, there are no pre-arranged "scenes" or lengthy sections of boxed text to be read as long-winded NPCs try to involve the PCs in their schemes. Instead, what we get are situations, along with detailed descriptions of adventuring locales -- the city, the royal palace, dungeons -- and it's up to the players and referee to use those things to craft an adventure of their own.

For this reason, I think it'd be quite easy to ignore even the situations described in the adventure and simply use its maps, locales, and new monsters on their own. Of course, doing so would deprive one of what I think is a terrific scenario filled with both exuberant sword-and-sorcery excitement and the potential for further developing the fallout from the events the PCs set in motion. Song of the Beast-Gods is the kind of adventure that could easily kick off an entire campaign and a pretty interesting one at that. That alone makes it worth the $5 cost of the PDF ($12 for print). My only real qualm in recommending this adventure is that it's not specifically written for older versions of D&D and thus using it will require a certain amount of conversion but nothing too onerous. In the end, it's Morten Braten's ideas that are this product's main selling point and they're very compelling if, like me, you prefer your fantasy with a healthy dose of pulp.

Presentation: 8 out of 10
Creativity: 8 out of 10
Utility: 8 out of 10

Buy This If: You're looking for a well-done, low-level sword-and-sorcery adventure and don't mind doing a little conversion work.
Don't Buy This If: You either have no interest in sword-and-sorcery or are unwilling to convert D20 mechanics to your preferred system.

The Tome of Horrors Complete

Looks like the long-awaited updating of Necromancer Games's The Tome of Horrors is almost upon us -- this time with a version converted to Swords & Wizardry. As its title suggests, this update includes material not just from the original The Tome of Horrors, but also from volumes II and III. The whole thing is apparently 1,000 pages long and is available for pre-order for $89.99 until June 1, 2011, after which the price will increase by $10.

I consider The Tome of Horrors one of the best books produced during the 3e era and an invaluable resource to the old school community, since it opens up a large number of classic monsters that weren't included in the D20 SRD. So, it's great that Frog God Games is again going to make these monsters available to gamers who didn't buy it the first time around.

On the other hand, by combining it with the second and third volumes, both of which were good but nowhere near as essential, they've boosted the pagecount -- and sticker price -- to ridiculous heights. I honestly cannot imagine using a 1000-page book, even as a reference. Likewise, paying nearly $100 (more, once shipping is factored in) isn't something I could countenance for almost any RPG-related product, so I'll be giving this one a pass. With luck, there will be a PDF version of The Tome of Horrors available at some point and, if it's priced reasonably, I may pick it up.

A Frog God Rises

The latest bit of news making the rounds is that Bill Webb of Necromancer Games has formed a new company, called Frog God Games, that will be publishing the The Slumbering Tsar Saga (now for Paizo's Pathfinder RPG) in its entirety as a series of 14 monthly electronic releases. Once all 14 installments are produced, they'll be bundled together as a hardcover book of nearly 600 pages. The first chapter will be available on May 15 for the introductory price of $2.99, but subsequent chapters will cost $9.99 each. You can prepay for the entire series (including the book) for $120.00, which is a small savings over buying each chapter separately. Non-subscribers will be able to buy the book at its release for $150.00.

I have fond memories of Necromancer Games, who produced some of the best products of the D20 era, including the awesome Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set and City State of the Invincible Overlord hardcover. And while I ceased playing D&D III years ago, I was sad when Necromancer more or less shut down operations amidst the chaos surrounding the latest edition's release. So, it's good to see a successor to Necromancer arise from the ashes to pick up where it left off. But there's no way I'd ever consider picking up The Slumbering Tsar Saga. The buy-in is way more than I could ever justify, even if I were playing Pathfinder, which I'm not, and, at nearly 600 pages, that's way more adventure than I would ever need. Having run a seat-of-the-pants old school campaign for a year and a half now, I can't imagine ever again seeing any value in monstrously large adventure tomes, even very well done ones, which I'm sure this one will be.

Still, I wish Frog God every success in this and future endeavors. Necromancer Games did some great work and I'm sure Frog God will follow in its footsteps.

Kingmaker

No, not that Kingmaker. I'm talking about the latest adventure path produced by Paizo for their Pathfinder RPG, about which I was informed this morning thanks to an email sent to me by the company. As everyone knows, I wish Paizo well. I'm very fond of many of the guys and gals who work there, particularly Erik Mona, who shares my love of all things pulp. Likewise, I'm forever in Paizo's debt for the Planet Stories line, of which I am a proud subscriber.

At the same time, I'm no fan of the Adventure Path concept, for reasons I hope I don't have to explain. I think the Pathfinder RPG is a very impressive piece of work, but it's not my cup of tea and I'm only slightly more likely to play it than I am to play D&D IV -- and that's not saying very much. However, "Kingmaker" intrigues me, I must admit. Here's part of what the email I received said:

We're very proud of Kingmaker, as it marks a new kind of Adventure Path for us. As always, there's an underlying story—this one involving a secret villain and a bandit lord and trolls and barbarians and missing villages and superstitious kobolds and drunk thugs and so much more—but how that story unfolds is going to be left in large part up to the players. In each of the six Kingmaker volumes, you'll find several quests for the PCs to complete. And don't be surprised if players make up their own quests as they explore the land!

Not only are we tackling a more nonlinear "sandbox" approach to adventure construction (which means that it's very likely your PCs will work through this adventure in a completely unique order), but as the Kingmaker Adventure Path unfolds, your PCs will settle towns, gather followers, raise nations, and fight wars. By the end of Kingmaker, chances are good that one of your PCs will, indeed, be king or queen of his or her own nation!

That sounds very much like something I'd enjoy, especially since each of the six volumes that make up the adventure path will include additional support for sandbox play, including "a new system to establish, develop, and expand a living fantasy community" and "streamlined rules to resolve mass combat."

I have absolutely no idea how easily these rules could be adapted to my preferred versions of D&D nor do I know if any of the volumes' other content would be of use to me. The free, dowloadable Players Guide to the series definitely piques my interest and the hex motif to the layout hits my nostalgia right between the eyes, so I am sorely tempted by this -- but I am also wary. I don't play Pathfinder nor am I likely to do so. I appreciate the virtues of its campaign setting and the way that the Paizo folks have managed to honor D&D's past while at the same time forging ahead with their own vision of things. Is that enough to convince me to plunk down $19.99 for each of the six issues of the adventure path? I really don't know, but this is the first product written for a contemporary rules set that I've considered buying in quite some time, so I may well succumb to temptation.

Anyone else know any more that might help me decide?

Appendix 3

So I'm flipping through the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and I come across Appendix 3, "Inspiring Reading." Given that Planet Stories seems to have as its goal the re-publication of a goodly part of Gygax's Appendix N, I was quite interested in what the guys and gals at Paizo considered their primary literary influences. For the benefit of those who haven't seen it, here's the list:

Barker, Clive: The Hellbound Heart, Imagica, Weaveworld
Beowulf (anonymous)
Blackwood, Algernon: “The Willows,” “The Wendigo,” et al.
Brackett, Leigh: The Sword of Rhiannon, Skaith series, et al.
Burroughs, Edgar Rice: Pellucidar, Mars, and Venus series
Campbell, Ramsey: Ryre the Swordsman series, et al.
Dunsany, Lord: The King of Elfland’s Daughter, et al.
Farmer, Philip José: World of Tiers series, et al.
Carter, Lin: ed. The Year’s Best Fantasy, Flashing Swords
Feist, Raymond: Riftwar saga, et al.
Gygax, Gary: Gord the Rogue series, et al.
Kuttner, Henry: Elak of Atlantis, The Dark World
Homer: The Odyssey
Howard, Robert E.: Conan series, et al.
Hugo, Victor: Les Miserables
King, Stephen: Dark Tower series
Leiber, Fritz: Fafhrd & Gray Mouser series, et al.
Lovecraft, H. P.: Cthulhu Mythos tales, et al.
Machen, Arthur: “The White People,” et al.
Martin, George R. R.: Song of Ice and Fire series
Merritt, A.: The Ship of Ishtar, The Moon Pool, et al.
Miéville, China: Bas-Lag series
Moorcock, Michael: Elric series, et al.
Moore, C. L.: Black God’s Kiss
Offutt, Andrew J.: ed. Swords Against Darkness
One Thousand and One Nights (traditional)
Poe, Edgar Allan: “The Fall of the House of Usher,” et al.
Saberhagen, Fred: Changeling Earth, et al.
Saunders, Charles: Imaro series, et al.
Shakespeare, William: Macbeth, et al.
Simmons, Dan: Hyperion series, The Terror, et al.
Smith, Clark Ashton: Averoigne and Zothique tales, et al.
Stoker, Bram: Dracula, Lair of the White Worm, et al.
Tolkien, J. R. R.: Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Hobbit
Vance, Jack: Dying Earth series, et al.
Wagner, Karl Edward: Kane series, ed. Echoes of Valor
Wells, H. G.: The Time Machine, et al.
Wellman, Manly Wade: John the Balladeer series, et al.
Zelazny, Roger: Amber series, et al.

It's a good list, to be sure, certainly not identical to my own, but then why would it be? I find it hard to quibble about any list that includes Howard, Kuttner, Leiber, Merritt, and Wagner. And Smith finally earns his much-deserved spot, which makes me happy. There are a few authors there I don't much care for, but that's true of Appendix N as well, if I'm honest.

Would that Pathfinder weren't a 600-page behemoth and I'd probably be happier still.

Pathfinder RPG Sells Out in Pre-Orders

This morning I received an email from Paizo indicating that the core rulebook of their upcoming Pathfinder RPG has sold out in pre-order. I think that's great, since, while I'm not really the target audience for Pathfinder's rules -- they're still too fiddly and complex for my liking -- I have a healthy dose of respect and affection for the guys and gals at Paizo, particularly Erik Mona, whose love for pulp fantasy exceeds my own. I keep my eye on what the company produces and am glad to see them succeed. I hope that, one day, they might dip their toes into the old school waters, because I have little doubt they understand what made the original editions of D&D so great.

Still, press releases like this all raise my skepticism. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to hear that a product in this industry has sold out before release, but, without solid figures on how many copies have been sold, what does it all mean? Erik Mona is quoted as saying, "To sell out a hugely ambitious print run before the release date just goes to show what an immense audience this game will enjoy in the years to come." How many books are in "a hugely ambitious print run?" Is it 10,000 copies? More? I doubt we'll ever really know and, on some level, I'm not sure it matters. So long as it's enough to make Paizo some money and keep Pathfinder profitable, the numbers are probably immaterial. I just wish more gaming companies were more forthcoming with sales figures, since they'd go a long way toward putting the current state of the hobby in context, particularly to those of us who remember its faddishness -- and ridiculous sales figures -- from the 1980s.

In any case, my congratulations to the Paizo crew. However you slice it, this is good news for them and I wish them every success in the world.

Very Interesting

A number of people have pointed out to me that, according to this page, Paizo will be selling the PDF version of their upcoming Pathfinder Roleplaying Game for $9.95. Now, I'm not ever likely to be playing Pathfinder. From what I have seen -- I have read the Beta Playtest in its various iterations -- it's still too much like v.3.5 to hold any appeal for me, no matter how much I like the Paizonians.

That said, $9.95 is a remarkably ... reasonable price for a PDF, especially in an industry where far too many companies offer very little discount over the cost of buying a hardcopy. I can't help but applaud Paizo for doing this and I hope -- almost certainly in vain -- that we might see other companies follow their lead. In my experience, a low price on a PDF means that I'm much more likely to plunk down some money on a product whose merits I'm unsure about than if the PDF is a mere 10-20% cheaper than the print version. Likewise, if I like the PDF, odds are good I'll also buy the print version. If there were a PDF version of HackMaster Basic available at a reasonable discount, I'd probably buy a copy, because, despite my skepticism, I'm still intrigued by it. But, alas, no such thing exists and so Kenzer has lost not just one but possibly two sales from me (and the possibility that I'll drive some sales their way with a review of the thing).

At $9.95, though, I'll happily snag a copy of Pathfinder, even though I'm highly unlikely to play it or to buy any of its supplementary material. That's a small enough amount of money that, even if I find nothing of value in the PDF, I won't feel as if I'd been cheated and the odds of that's happening are pretty slim indeed.

An Opportunity Missed

The other day I got a package in the mail from Paizo. That's not unusual, since I'm a Planet Stories subscriber and regularly get packages from them. This package was larger and thinner than the ones I usually receive, so I was curious about its contents. I opened it up and inside was issue #20 of Pathfinder magazine. I was surprised by this, since I hadn't ordered it. A quick check with Paizo -- whose customer service is excellent -- revealed that the product had been sent to me in error instead of the next Planet Stories volume. I was told to keep the copy of Pathfinder and that a new Planet Stories book would be sent to me immediately (which it was -- again, kudos to Paizo customer service).

I hadn't looked at a copy of Pathfinder since its earliest issues. I make no bones about my respect for the Paizo guys and gals. I've even reviewed several of their products quite favorably, albeit with my usual caveats. Unfortunately, Pathfinder appeared just in time for my return to old school gaming, so I never had any strong desire to take up a subscription. Having had the chance to look over issue #20, which is the second part of an Arabian-themed adventure path, I can't say I regret that choice.

That's not to say that the issue's feature adventure, "House of the Beast," is a bad one, because it's not. There's actually a lot I like about it, particularly its Sinbad the Sailor-like ambience, with its ruined desert fortress housing a dark cult. Paizo does a superb job of presenting an exciting world that draws heavily on the pulp fantasies that inspired D&D -- perhaps too good a job. One of my beefs with this issue of Pathfinder is the depth of the information it provides to frame the adventure. The adventure itself takes up pages 6 through 49 of a 96-page product, which is a lot when you consider that the titular House of the Beast is no megadungeon, but a small-ish ruin whose levels generally have fewer than 20 chambers each, sometimes much fewer. Much of its word count is taken up by exhaustive descriptions of the dungeon's rooms, inhabitants, and features, as well as background information tying it all together into a rational whole.

And then there are the D20 mechanics. I realize I've been spoiled by having played Swords & Wizardry exclusively over the last few months, but that doesn't take away from the pain of being reminded just how expansive D20 stat blocks are, even when it comes to very simple creatures. I can't imagine trying to run a game as complex as this ever again. The whole thing almost made it difficult for me to appreciate the excellence of the adventure, which is, at its base, a satisfying -- if very focused -- dungeon crawl rather than a story-heavy railroad many associate with the Adventure Path concept. But the rules are too much and, having played D20 games for a long time, unnecessarily so. I know backward compatibility with v.3.5 D&D is important to Paizo and I respect that on one level. Yet, I can't help but wonder about an alternate universe where the upcoming Pathfinder RPG wasn't a nearly-600-page tome costing $50 but instead a slimmer, less expensive volume with simple rules better suited to my freewheeling tastes.

In the end, though, I'm not the target audience for Pathfinder and, while I regret that because I like the Paizo crew and want to support them, I'm also fine with it, because I already have a game that caters to my idiosyncrasies. I sometimes imagine an alternate universe where Paizo marries their unmatched world building skills to a simpler set of rules. I honestly don't know what would happen if a company as savvy as Paizo adopted and promoted a retro-clone as their rules vehicle, but it's fun to imagine it nonetheless.

The OD&D Planes

Serendipity seems to strike a lot in the blogging world, with lots of people riffing off the same basic themes and making many similar posts. Over at Demons & Dragons, Jarl Frå Oslo posted an image I'd just seen yesterday as I was re-reading early issues of The Strategic Review. It's from an article by Gary Gygax in issue 6 called "The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and their Relationships to Good and Evil." It's a very fascinating article, because it's a glimpse into Gary's mind as he's expanding the threefold alignment structure of OD&D into the fivefold structure we see in Holmes.

Even more interesting, from a historical point of view if no other, is the aforementioned image, which doubles as an alignment graph and a map of the planes as Gary then conceived of them.

Notice the names: Heaven (not "Seven Heavens"), Paradise (not "Twin Paradises"), Elysium, Limbo, the Abyss, Hades, Hell (not "Nine Hells"), and Nirvana. There is also no plane associated with Neutrality, which is telling, I think. Notice too the beings listed as exemplars of the four cardinal alignments: Saint, Godling, Demon, and Devil. (What exactly a "godling" is I do not know, but I have some guesses)

I hope I'm not alone in thinking that this simplified structure, reminiscent of the more convoluted version we get in AD&D, is just keen. Like many aspects of OD&D + Supplements, I find that the end result is a kind of proto-AD&D or "AD&D Lite," and that's exactly the vibe I want in my games. In looking at this illustration, I was reminded of the planar structure Paizo adopted for its Golarion setting, which is eerily similar. Knowing Erik Mona's love for the old school, I'd not be the least bit surprised if this article was an inspiration when he and his crew were designing Golarion, but I have no proof of that. Even if it wasn't, I'm tickled to see some commonality between a 30 year-old article and contemporary game design. That doesn't happen everyday, alas.

REVIEW: Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting

I'm going to do something I rarely do and issue a mild retraction of a comment I made in my earlier review of the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer. In that review, which was largely positive, I pointed out two areas where I felt the product violated old school sensibilities: its art and its wealth of detail. I still feel that the art (mostly) runs counter to the Old Ways, but I'm big enough to admit that I was wrong on the question of detail. Yes, it's true that no one needs as much detail as either the Gazetteer or the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting provide, but, presumably, if one is buying a campaign setting rather than making it up for oneself, detail is, to some extent anyway, what one is after.

Granted, there are levels of detail and, for me, the comparative sparseness of the Gazetteer was a blessing rather than a curse. Yet, having thoroughly read the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting and enjoyed it, I can safely say that it still manages to leave plenty of room for individual referees to insert their own ideas or to take the information this 256-page book provides into directions of their own devising. Whereas the Gazetteer provides only three or four paragraphs of description for each of the major nations and city-states of Golarion, the Campaign Setting offers up two (sometimes three or four) pages for them all, including many not covered in the Gazetteer. It's certainly a lot to take in all at once and I am deeply sympathetic to anyone who feels this is too much, particularly in the area of history. At the same time, I didn't see a lot of self-indulgent fluff in the additional material. Instead, we're given a solid overview of each locale, including their populations, societies, power groups, and major settlements. I think, with this information, it'd be quite easy for the referee to open to the appropriate section of the book, skim it quickly, and get plenty of details, including specific bits of local color, to make the area memorable in the course of play. That's useful, but, again, I am sympathetic to those who find it overkill.

Moreso than the Gazetteer, the Campaign Setting is a D20 book, as there's a fair bit more game mechanics in it, such as spells, equipment, feats, and prestige classes. That means that there's more "wasted" pages for old schoolers than there was in the Gazetter, which is practically mechanics free. Of course, old school gamers are accustomed to overlooking game mechanics if there are good ideas to be found and there are plenty of them here. I very much like a lot of what the authors have done with the traditional D&D races -- including half-orcs -- to give them a spit and polish that makes them at once different and more like themselves than ever. Indeed, one of the great glories of this product is the way that its writers clearly thought long and hard about the archetypes and origins of many D&D staples and then used those things to craft new takes on them that were nevertheless consonant with what had gone before. Despite its failings in other areas, I certainly cannot fault the Paizo design team for not knowing and respecting the history and traditions of Dungeons & Dragons -- but then I'd expect nothing less from the people who brought us Planet Stories.

Golarion, the world of the Pathfinder Chronicles, has a distinctly Hyborian Age feel to it, with its obvious riffs on, allusions to, and outright thefts of real world historical places and cultures. That gives it a familiar air that I find appealing, for reasons I've discussed before. What I also appreciate is the willingness of Paizo to broaden its definition of fantasy to include such things as firearms, robots, printing presses, and many other bits of "advanced" technology that some deem anachronistic and thus inappropriate to the genre. Like it pulp forebears, Golarion is a world in which, literally, anything might be found, provided it offers a good hook for an exciting adventure. Thus, we can find gunslingers in the magic-dead Grand Duchy of Alkenstar and robots patrolling the borders of Numeria. It's a refreshing change of pace from the more "realistic" approaches to fantasy world design we've seen in the last three decades. This is a campaign setting built to support D&D (or, technically, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game), right down to its gonzo keep-'em-guessing logic of adventure design.

The book exudes a pulp-y feel that's hard to miss, but, as I noted previously, that feel is somewhat muted by its art, which is almost uniformly of a piece with the 3e/4e house style of WotC (no surprise given that many of the same artists were used). This leads to a slight "split personality" esthetically, which is foreshadowed in the fact that it includes two "celebrity" introductions: one by Robert J. Kuntz, co-DM of the Greyhawk campaign, and one by R.A. Salvatore, creator of the drow ranger Drizzt Do'Urden. I can barely think of two people whose involvement with and contributions to D&D have been so different -- much like the disconnect I feel between the text of the Campaign Setting and its illustrations. Given that Paizo is hoping to grab a sizable portion of the 3e remnant community that didn't move on to 4e, I can't really blame them for the style of art they chose, as it'd be familiar to 3e players already. Likewise, there's no doubt that Jeff Carlisle and the guys at UDON, for example, are talented. I simply feel that the art they produce exudes a different feel than the one that the Campaign Setting implies.

Golarion is clearly a labor of love by people who adore D&D and have a fondness for pulp fantasy. I've tried not to let these facts cloud my objectivity, though, which is why, despite my generally positive view of the book, I have a couple of pointed caveats. First, there's the price. The book retails for $49.99, which is frankly a lot of money, even for a full-color, glossy book like this. I understand that Paizo is a small(ish) company and thus probably has tighter margins than, say, WotC, but this is an expensive book for what it is. More specifically, it's a lot for a book as shoddily bound as the one I own, which is starting to tear away from its spine after only a few months of my owning it solely as a reference book. I've never used the book in play and I handle all my books with care. It's possible I've just been unlucky and gotten an aberrant copy. Even so, the price is high and I can't in good conscience recommend the book to anyone who's either not a completist or not going to use it in play. It's well written and contains terrific ideas, but I'm not sure that's enough to justify dropping so much money on it.

My second concern is a broader one and it pertains not so much to this book itself as to what appears to be the Paizo business plan for developing and selling Pathfinder products. This plan involves not only monthly installments of several adventure paths but also lots of supplementary material in the form of articles and companion books, each of which further fleshes out some aspect of the setting in great detail -- far greater than anything seen in the Campaign Setting. Now, Golarion is a huge world, so it's quite possible to stay away from the areas Paizo is developing -- or ignore even the stuff they are -- so as to stay clear of the growing mass of canon. However, after a certain point, I have no doubt that this will become harder and harder, if only because many players have a tendency to think that, if it's in a printed product, it's true and the referee must abide by it. That's far from a universal statement, I realize, and I recognize that it's unfair to damn this book for something external to it. Nevertheless, I think there's a very real possibility that Golarion will quite quickly become over-developed after the fashion of many other earlier settings. Anyone buying this book needs to give this due consideration before deciding to take the plunge.

This is a good product and one in which there are lots of good ideas. I think it's a good example of setting that takes pulp sensibilities and uses them to create something intelligible to gamers more used to other fantasy influences. In that respect, it's a great success. Looked at within the context of the plan Paizo seems to be adopting, though, I worry that the openness and freedom offered even in this already-packed volume will evaporate and what we'll be left with is yet another pre-packaged "big story" setting filled to the gills with NPC heroes, villains, and with tons of niggling details. That's by no means a certain future for Golarion, but it's also a very possible one. Here's hoping I'm proved wrong.

Final Score: 4 out of 5 polearms.

An Old New World

Golarion is a new world. We hope, however, that in many ways it feels like an old world -- comfortable, familiar, understood. Not only did we find inspiration for Golarion from such classic authors of fantasy as Robert E. Howard, Jack Vance, and -- yes -- Professor Tolkien, we also continue to find inspiration in the ancient tales and legends of our own planet Earth.

--Mike McArtor, in his introduction to the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting

The "No Time to Prep" Fallacy

One of the refrains one often hears in reference to why D&D has changed in the way it has is that older editions demanded too much of the referee and thus took more time than was reasonable to prepare. And, as we're constantly told, gamers today just don't have as much time to spend prepping for a game as they used in the halcyon days of their youths. Leaving aside the question of whether this is in fact true -- hint: I don't believe it is -- I think it highly questionable to "solve" this problem by making adventures more exhaustive in their details. One of the big problems I have with many modern adventures, and this includes Pathfinder, is that they're simply bursting with details and backstories and so forth, so much so that I find that, whatever benefit I gain from using a prepackaged module is lost -- and then some -- in the amount of time spent studying and taking notes in order to run the adventure "properly."

I'm honestly not sure why adventures nowadays need to be so long or detailed. Actually, that's not true at all -- I have a pretty good idea why they are. However, from the standpoints of utility and efficiency, I'm far from sure that we have gained much by making modules so long and jam-packed with information. Give me some maps, some basic descriptions, and an overview of how all these elements might fit together and I'm ready to go. What I want out of an adventure is a spur to my imagination, nothing more.

REVIEW: Classic Monsters Revisited

Part of Paizo's Pathfinder Chronicles line of products, Classic Monsters Revisited is, to put it plainly, a peculiar little book. Written by a variety of authors (many of them associated with D&D's Third Edition), this 64-page, softcover book examines ten of "classic" monsters -- bugbears, gnolls, hobgoblins, orcs, lizard men, trolls, ogres, kobolds, minotaurs, and goblins -- and "reimagines" them for the Pathfinder fantasy setting of Golarion. Given how often the term "reimagining" is used nowadays as a synonym for the wholesale gutting of an idea or concept in the interests of marketing an existing IP, I can't say I was keen on picking up this book. But, buoyed by what I saw in the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer, I decided to take a chance and I am glad I did so.

This is not to say this book is flawless; I have a number of nits to pick with it from my own idiosyncratic old school perspective. Overall, though, this book is written with imagination and with more respect for the traditions of D&D than was 4e. It's hard not to have one's heart warmed, at least a little, after reading editor James Jacobs' introduction, where he states plainly that the authors of Classic Monsters Revisited went back to the original Monster Manual for inspiration when writing their reimaginings. More to the point, his words are not just idle. Take a look and you'll see, for example, that orcs have tribal names that are clearly inspired by those in the 1e MM. There are many other little bits of color and detail like that, loving nods to the original source material.

The book itself is well made and sturdy, with glossy full-color pages. I can't say that I'm a fan of this format, not least because I'm sure it pushes the cost of the book up ($17.99 retail) unnecessarily. The art itself is good but very modern, in its obsession with detail and "action." That said, there are a number of pieces I quite liked. Anything with the reimagined goblins is terrific, but then that's because Paizo's version of these monsters as malicious little vermin with a love for twisted battle songs and a fear of dogs is simply inspired. There's also a nice piece showing an unwary adventurer, torch in hand, about to turn a corner in a labyrinth, where a minotaur lays in wait.

The bulk of the book is made up of ten chapters, each of which presents a new monstrous race as it appears in the Pathfinder setting. Each 6-page entry includes an overview, as well as discussions of ecology, habitat and society, campaign role, treasure, variants, and additional details about the place of the creatures in Golarion. Each chapter ends with single-page stat write-up in v.3.5 terms. In most cases, this write-up is identical to that found in the v.3.5 Monster Manual, but there are small alterations in some, small enough that they'd probably escape notice unless you were specifically comparing the two, as I was. I presume the changes were done both to bring them closer to the reimagined versions of the monsters and also to make the game mechanics simpler and easier to use, which seem to be the watchwords of Paizo, as they forge ahead with their own v.3.5-derived Pathfinder RPG.

The reimaginings themselves are almost universally good. I've already noted the goblins, who are far and away the best things in this book. That said, many other reimaginings struck a chord with me; the "bogeyman" bugbears, the Spartan hobgoblins, the cursed minotaurs, and the cannibalistic ogres all stand out. In reading these entries, I was often pleased at how the authors had managed to do something quite remarkable: create a new version of an old favorite that was still somehow continuous with nearly 30 years of D&D tradition. They didn't succeed in every case. I intensely dislike the draconic kobolds that 3e foisted on us and that this book continues to develop, for example. Yet, despite the missteps, there is a solid core here that I felt I could use in my own games.

Although written with v.3.5 in mind, there is in fact very little rules content to it. Aside from the stat block and the occasional item or feat relegated to sidebars, this book is almost pure "fluff." I think an old school gamer will find a lot to enjoy here. Certainly six pages is probably more information than most of us need for these monsters. There is, I can't deny, more than a whiff of new school indulgence in setting for setting's sake in this book. At the same time, I was reminded often of the way that, prior to the advent of the Monster Manual, each referee's interpretation of an orc's appearance was different. And just what the heck was a gnoll anyway? As much as I love my Gygaxian MM, there's a certain sense in which it was the beginning of the end of the imagination and creativity that OD&D demanded. After its appearance, we knew what an orc looked like and that a gnoll was a hyena man, not some magical cross between a gnome and a troll. And while I'm as fond of established D&D tradition as anyone, there's a big part of me that longs for the wild and woolly days when one campaign's orc and another's were not necessarily the same.

Classic Monsters Revisited goes a long way toward making many old favorites new and interesting. After reading this book, I want to use minotaurs again in a way I haven't in, well, probably ever. The same goes for goblins and ogres. That's a pretty remarkable achievement. Even more remarkable is the way that the book made me look at other monsters not described in this book and whom I thought I knew well. Now, I'm not so sure; I think the next time I use, say, a gargoyle I'll present it somewhat differently than the way it's traditional presented, because that's what D&D is all about.

OD&D presented itself as a toolkit for building your own fantasy world and I think that would be the best way to present and market even modern editions of the game. Believe me, I am not arguing that Classic Monsters Revisited is in any way an old school product or completely consonant with my own Quixotic hopes for the hobby. This book is too clearly part of a plan to build and promote a new IP for that, but I am willing to forgive it that sin, because it made me look at things I've "known" for nearly three decades and reconsider them. I can't remember the last D&D product that made me do that, but then that might explain why I'm no longer buying new D&D products. On the other hand, I will certainly continue to buy Pathfinder products, so long as they continue to spur my imagination the way this one did.

Final Score: 4 out of 5 polearms

REVIEW: Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer

This review marks something of a divergence from past ones, in that it's not about a "neo-old school" product at all but a thoroughly contemporary one. Consequently, I'd like to offer some explanation of why I've chosen to review the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer. Firstly and perhaps most importantly, Paizo has positioned itself as the heir to the pre-4e traditions of Dungeons & Dragons. Its publisher, Erik Mona, makes no secret of his love for the lore created by Gygax and Arneson and the pulp fantasies that inspired them. To the right of this blog, you'll see I've enshrined a quote from Mr Mona that I think speaks volumes about Paizo's "philosophy" and the reasons why they chose not to sign on to 4e. Secondly, Paizo's house setting, Golarion, is intended as an homage not just to pulp fantasy but also to the World of Greyhawk. Mr Mona rose to prominence in the roleplaying industry through his work on the RPGA's now-defunct Living Greyhawk campaign and has long expressed a deep love for Oerth. Finally, I've wanted for some time to find a good contemporary gaming product whose content and presentation I could critique from my own idiosyncratic old school perspective. The Gazetteer is an especially good one for this, in my opinion, because the philosophy behind it is not so alien to the old school that my review would simply be unrelentingly negative. At the same time, the fact that there are clear differences from my own perspective affords me the opportunity to draw some bright lines that may help others understand my own take on what "old school" is all about.

With that preamble out of the way, let's turn to the product itself. The Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer is a 64-page perfect-bound book, with cover art by Steve Prescott. The front cover art depicts a fight between two figures and a red dragon on a bridge. At least one of the figures I recognize as one of the "iconics" of the Pathfinder Chronicles, while the other one I don't recall ever having seen before. The illustration is decent in my opinion and doesn't fall prey to most of the usual excesses in evidence in contemporary gaming art. That said, I can't say that I have much liking for the concept of "iconics," since I think this shifts the focus away from each player's character. The back cover reproduces a piece of interior art and is a typical "strike a pose" piece devoid of context.

The book begins with a two-page introduction that describes the setting in broad terms and establishes the current situation. The current age of Golarion, which began a little over a century before the present, is known as the Age of Lost Omens, so called because it began with the death of the ascended mortal named Aroden, who had until then guided the destiny of humanity. His death heralded the beginning of a new age, one in which no significant prophecy has yet come to pass and the future of humanity is no longer tied to the actions of a divine patron. As a set-up for a pulp fantasy campaign setting, I think this is superb. The focus on humanity as the fulcrum of the age is very much in keeping with such traditions, as is the notion of destiny unfettered by the whims of the gods. This is promising stuff.

The next 14 pages are devoted to describing the various human cultures of Golarion, as well as their demihuman counterparts. There's also a discussions of languages and the roles played by the various D&D classes within the setting. I found these pages somewhat of a mixed bag. On the one hand, I appreciated the diversity of human cultures, a diversity that reminded me of the Hyborian Age in the way it mixed different eras and continents with abandon. No one can go wrong by borrowing a page of two from Howard. There's a small amount of v.3.5/Pathfinder RPG-specific material in these pages in the form of additional/modified class abilities, but they take up little space and can safely be ignored. All in all, the material here provides just enough information without becoming overbearing. The art in this section, while attractive, is uniformly post-Elmore new school with little action and no context.

Four pages are devoted to time-keeping and the planar cosmology of the setting. Of these four pages, nearly three are devoted to a timeline that stretches back some 10,000 years and includes far too many points of detail. From such timelines is canon born and the obsession with such minutiae has been the death knell of many a game setting. Given the nature of the Age of Lost Omens, there was little need or purpose in detailing more than a century or two into the past. The rest is an indulgence that binds the hands of the referee and all but guarantees that future Pathfinder Chronicles will inevitably delve into such matters. Worse still, in my opinion, is the note that the time line of the setting advances in a one-to-one correspondence with time in the real world. I realize that this is in part to accommodate the organized play Pathfinder Society, but the reality is that an advancing timeline is another sign of creeping canon and it worries me.

The bulk of the book is 36 pages detailing the various nations of Golarion. The thumbnail sketch of each nation reminds me strongly of the old World of Greyhawk gazetteer, which is hardly a coincidence, as I noted above. We are given information on each nation's overall alignment, capital city (and population), other notable settlements (also with populations), ruler, languages, and religion. After that, we are given a longer description whose length varies by entry. In general, each nation gets about five paragraphs of information, which is about four paragraphs too long in my opinion. In a gazetteer of this sort, I would much rather have only the barest of bare bones, not only because of space considerations, but also because the sparer the entries, the more room there is for the individual referee to make a nation his own.

That said, the nations of Golarion are a wonderfully diverse lot. I approve heartily of most of them, as they not only fit many beloved pulp fantasy stereotypes but also include a number of nations that, in defying accepted conventions, nicely fit within the broader context out of which OD&D arose. A few examples:

• Andoran: This Neutral Good nation is basically a fantasy version of the United States of America, complete with a revolution that resulted in a "kingdom without a king." This is in contrast to the Chaotic Neutral land of Galt, which is basically a fantasy version of Revolutionary France. By all rights, neither nation "fits" in a fantasy setting and yet I found them both perfectly acceptable, particularly in a world where humanity's divine patron was no more and the forms of the past mean nothing -- novus ordo saeclorum indeed.
• Cheliax: Nothing is better than a once-good nation turned to evil and Cheliax is just such a nation. Formerly a stronghold of the worship of Aroden, it has now turned to diabolism in the wake of that god's death. The Chelaxians are bad guys to rival the Stygians.
• Irrisen: An evil land whose witch-queen is a daughter of Baba Yaga. What's not to love?
• Numeria: This "savage land of super-science" answers the question "What would have happened if Conan had used alien technology to rule his kingdom?"
  
• Osirion: The name alone tickles me -- a fantasy version of ancient Egypt.

There are many, many nations and most are immediately recognizable either as traditional fantasy stereotypes or analogs of real world nations from throughout history. I view this as a good thing, because it's in keeping with the pulp traditions on which D&D is founded. Likewise, it's much easier to create characters and situations when you can immediately understand that Mendev is a crusader state or that the Lands of the Linnorm Kings is where the "Vikings" are from. By and large, I have no complaints about Golarion's nations. They were broadly drawn, yet well realized. I do wish less detail had been given about some of them, of course, but the information given is still limited enough not to be too disruptive.

The last seven pages of the book lists and discusses the gods of Golarion. Like the nations, they're broadly drawn stereotypes that meet most of the usual "requirements" of a fantasy setting. I appreciated the fact that the gods are not "racial" in character and that different nations/races worship the same gods under different names and traditions. I've always found the idea of racial pantheons to be unnecessarily complex in most presentations. At the same time, I'll admit to rankling a bit about yet another presentation of Asmodeus as a god rather than as a devil. I realize that this is an idiosyncratic bugaboo of mine, but I mention it nonetheless.

Also included with the book is a fold-out color map of the portion of Golarion described in the Gazetteer (there is, of course, more to the planet than what is described -- Asian analog nations, if nothing else). The map is at a very high scale, showing only the most high-level details, making it more of a pretty piece of artwork than a functional bit of cartography. One presumes that more detailed, lower-level maps will be included in other Pathfinder products.

In terms of its presentation, I found the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer solid. There were afew editing problems, but the text was clear and easy on the eyes. The art throughout is all full-color and of uniformly good quality. In terms of its presentation, though, it varies quite a lot, with much of it depicting either posed characters or action scenes starring the Pathfinder iconics. There are a few exceptions, but most of these struck me as decidedly lacking in old school vibe. That's to be expected, of course, but it's still a bit disappointing. One of the things I had hoped is that, esthetically, Pathfinder might provide a template for how to use modern media and artists to present a fundamentally old school tableau. This doesn't seem to be the case; Pathfinder is very much in the same artistic continuum as 3e and 4e, highlighting the iconics over "generic" characters and employing too many stilted, "posed" scenes.

At the same time, in terms of content, there is much to recommend about the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetter. The book itself is nearly rules-free, which means that it could be adapted very easily to early editions of D&D. Just as importantly, the content is very much in keeping with pulp fantasy forms and traditions. Golarion is not a "modern" setting in any sense, except that this book was published in 2008. My comparison to the Hyborian Age is not hyperbole; I think Golarion stands solidly in line with the principles that brought us Conan's stomping grounds. The "ugly" aspects of pulp fantasy -- racism, slavery, human sacrifice, tyranny -- are all in evidence in Golarion and there is no attempt to whitewash them. Half-orcs, for example, exist in this setting and the Gazetteer makes no bones about the fact the breed owes its existence to "violence or perversion." This is not an antiseptic, PG-rated world and it's all the better for it.

In short, I like Golarion and I like this product. I think it's a marvelous example of a new school company producing something that's consonant -- at least broadly -- with old school sensibilities. The artwork will certainly offend sensitive old schoolers, but I'd urge them to look beyond the iconics and poses and examine the content, which, for the most part, is quite excellent and usable. I have no doubt, though, that Paizo will develop and detail every nook and cranny of Golarion, turning it into a setting as obsessed with minutiae as any other published today. That's a great shame, as I think Golarion would make for a fine sandbox-style setting and I'm sorely tempted to try and use it as such, ignoring almost everything else that will be published for it and using the Gazetteer as my starting point.

Despite it all, I'm going to keep my eye on the Pathfinder Chronicles. Rules-wise and esthetically, there's not a lot of commonality with the old school, but the content itself is first rate and immediately intelligible to gamers who cut their teeth on the Wilderlands of High Fantasy or the World of Greyhawk. That's a rare thing nowadays and it deserves to be applauded.

Final Score: 3½ out of 5 polearms

Universal System

I've been known to say that the transition to 4e this year will be very different from the transition to 3e in one undeniable respect: the Open Game License. Even though Wizards of the Coast will no longer be supporting v.3.5, others can do so freely and legally, as Paizo is doing with its upcoming Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. What I suspect this means is that, if they play their cards right, Paizo will soon become the de facto inheritor of a large portion of the remnant v.3.5 community. How large a portion I can't predict and it's really not important for the point I intend to make here anyway. What is important is that v.3.5 will not die with the advent of 4e. Indeed, it now has the capacity to grow and evolve along a natural trajectory, according to the wishes of both Paizo and its fans.

For that matter, even if Paizo were to declare bankruptcy tomorrow, v.3.5 will survive, thanks to the OGL. Anyone who wishes to publish their own version of the game can do so, using rules and, more importantly, concepts that are available to anyone who is willing to abide by the terms of the OGL and WotC can't stop them from doing so. Whatever else I may think of WotC and what it's become over the years, I owe the company my thanks, as the OGL is an amazing gift to the gaming community. Besides preserving the v.3.5 rules (about which I am largely ambivalent), the SRD also preserves innumerable ideas, concepts, and terms from the history of D&D. I can now talk about magic missile spells and ankhegs and gelatinous cubes and I'm not violating WotC's copyrights or trademarks. That's a powerful thing. D&D's DNA is now there for anyone to manipulate, provided they play by a few very simple ground rules that can never be changed. Thank you, WotC, for this! (I suspect the reason why 4e is in fact so different from 3e and doesn't "feel" like D&D anymore is because WotC regrets having "given away the store" through the OGL and now needs to reinvent the game from the ground up in order to "reclaim" it, but I digress)

Unfortunately, no previous edition of D&D is open in the same way that v.3.5 is. There have been numerous attempts to reconstruct past editions through the clever use of the OGL. I'm fond of all of them, for they all attempt to preserve different aspects of the patrimony bequeathed us by Gygax and Arneson. The problem with these retro-clones, leaving aside legal questions that some have -- questions I generally don't share, I should add -- is that none of them has come close to being universally accepted, even within the old school community. OSRIC, which attempts to preserve AD&D for the ages, seems to have made the most impact, but, honestly, its acceptance does not appear widespread. The number of products available under OSRIC's license remains small and I have a hard time imagining its growing significantly. Anything is possible, I suppose, but I don't have the sense that there are publishers laying big plans to use OSRIC to help fuel the old school renaissance I feel percolating beneath the surface. (The situation is, if anything, even worse for retro-clones of Basic D&D, where we have two competing versions, each of which takes a different approach to adapting the source material.)

I don't think I'm being Pollyannish by saying once again that, within the next year or two, we will see an old school renaissance. There were rumblings of dissatisfaction with the direction of the hobby before the announcement of 4e last year, but I think its arrival next month will serve as a catalyst for a lot of people to look back to where the hobby came from and where it strayed from its original vision. I'm not (necessarily) saying that this will result in the rise of a game or a company that will take the world -- or even the hobby -- by storm in the same way that old school D&D did. As others have said better than I, tabletop roleplaying will never again enjoy the faddish popularity it had in the late 70s and early 80s. So, I have no delusions of grandeur. What I do have, though, is a powerful sense that a line has been crossed in the development of the hobby and that some gamers -- and not just older ones -- aren't well served by the overly complex, difficult to learn, and time-consuming to prep RPGs that have become the norm. These gamers are looking for something simple, exuberant, and fun. Combine that with the era-ending deaths of Gary Gygax and Bob Bledsaw and I think you have the recipe for a counter-reformation.

But there's no standard bearer, no unifying figure or company, to lead this counter-reformation. Everyone who wants to get into the old school game wants to create their own system, their own interpretation of the original editions. And I think these desires, while understandable, are making the old school renaissance harder to get off the ground than it needs to be. No one is in the position Paizo is likely to be with regards to v.3.5 and that's a shame. The reality is that, for all the various persnickety changes to the rules, it's not so huge a leap from OD&D to 2e that a product made for one edition couldn't be used, with very few changes, for another. By and large, the rules have a degree of continuity that does not exist with 3e, let alone 4e. This isn't meant to minimize the differences between editions, but the reality is that even the much-reviled 2e is light years closer to Gygax and Arneson than 3e is. Its rules, as written, can be played in an old school fashion, whereas that's mostly impossible with more modern editions.

What am I getting at? Old school D&D already has a common language. But for some "dialecticisms," an OD&Der can communicate intelligibly with a AD&Der or a 2e-er in a way they can't with a player of a modern edition of D&D. Despite this, there's no universally accepted or recognized "meta-system" for writing old school materials. Back in the day, Judges Guild had what it called its "Universal System," which was a not-so-subtle reworking of common terms ("Hits to Kill" or HTK, instead of "Hit Points," for example) so that meaning was conveyed without using terms specific to any single edition (or even game).

I can't help but think that maybe we need something like that again. In the absence of One Retro-Clone to Rule Them All, what old school gaming needs to kickstart its renaissance is a lingua franca that everyone, from a fan of the three little brown books to a Zeb Cook groupie, can understand and use without much difficulty. In a very real sense, grognards don't need new games; they already have the games they like and have had them for years. What they don't have is new products that are professionally made -- yeah, it always comes back to that -- that carry the old school spirit forward to the future. Part of the reason why they don't is because no one has stepped up to the plate to do that. And part of the reason why no one has stepped up is because, if they choose OSRIC (or LL or BFRPG or ...) to do so, they're seen as "one of them." The old school community, like many marginalized communities, is very fractious and insular. It's riddled with ancient rivalries, nursed hurts, and bad blood and I see so many missed opportunities because of it.

Finding a way to unite all these people under a single banner would be a monumental task and it may not even be possible. The reality is that pre-3e D&D players, regardless of their favorite edition, have far more in common with another than they sometimes like to admit. I understand the appeal of elitism and exclusivity; I sometimes engage in it myself. But, ultimately, it's destructive and self-defeating. Too many of this hobby's traditions have already been willfully destroyed in pursuit of the bottom line. Why must we do it to ourselves without meaning to? No, the time has come to bury the hatchets and make an attempt to build on what we all have in common rather than to fixate on what separates us.

How will we do this? I'm not sure yet. The projects I want to undertake are a part of it, but just a small part. We need to do more and that's where I'm seeking advice (yet again). What can we do to bring the old school community together and help it become the seedbed for the flowering I see in the offing? We have a chance here to reclaim much of what we love about this hobby and make it vibrant once more. Will we seize it?