Copyright

All blog posts, unless otherwise noted, are copyrighted to the Author (that's me) and may not be used without written permission.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

EarthDawn Versus D&D 4th Edition

Background: I played my first Dungeons and Dragons adventure in 1978 with my friend Dennis and his brother and friends. I've played, off and on but mostly on, since then. I have played some other systems along the way, including genres outside of the Fantasy setting, but always returning to the granddaddy of them all at some point.

My SoCal gaming group really enjoyed EarthDawn (ED), a game (at the time) released by FASA Corp. We enjoyed the world, the variety and mix of playable classes and races, and the multiple dice aspect and rerolling of the game system. One other nice aspect was that mages and non-mages both remained effective and useful into higher levels.

At the time, Dungeons and Dragons (DnD) was in second edition, and was still a bit cumbersome to play and learn for new players, had a lot of "splat" books for classes and races to help you min/max your character. Soon, DnD 3.0 and then 3.5 came out, and we switched back to those, as the new rule set clarified and simplified a lot of what our gaming group didn't like about DnD. However, there still were many and frequent discussions over how a certain rule should be used or interpreted, because the editing on the books was never great and they used ambiguous terminology and examples.

Wizards of the Coast released DnD 4th Edition. The aim of this edition was to simplify some rules, alleviate a lot of the detritus that had built up around certain classes, races, and styles of play, and try to minimize the overt dominance of mage classes at higher levels in favor of keeping all classes viable through all levels.

I have now both played and DMed DnD 4e for almost two years. And what I find interesting is just how much of the setting and rules that DnD 4e has taken from ED.

AreaDnD 4eED
Point of Light setting?XX
Spellcasters can cast all the time?X (matrix)X (at-wills)
All characters powered by magic?XX
All tests must equal/exceed difficulty number?XX
Specific rules always override general rules?XX
Passive "spot" ability?X(Passive Perception/Insight)X (Perception)
Hero points?X (Action points)X (Karma)
Multiple dice used?O (many powers give multiple damage dice)X (step system)
Extreme success in battle?X (Criticals)X (Armor defeating)
All characters can heal?X(2nd Wind/healing surges)X (recovery tests)

While I wont list them, there are many rules similarities in the two systems now, as well. Both systems make it harder to multi-class, for example, as the Discipline/Class you choose is something of an embodiment to how your character relates to the world through his magic, so it is harder to learn abilities from other Discipline/Classes. DnD 4e has the advantage here, though, as it does allow you to "dip" into another class and get a couple of magical abilities from them, making your character more generally useful to a party at the cost of a little specialization.

One area I'm disappointed 4e didn't copy is the ED standard of having a test to hit a character and then a test to damage the character. By this I mean that in ED you have to roll to see if you land a blow with your weapon, spell, or social interaction first, usually pitted against a character's Dexterity. And then, if you happen to hit, the character's Armor absorbs some of the damage. This system better represents the different decisions players may make in wanting a "light, fast, hardly hit" character versus a "meat shield, tanker" type character. In ED, you can buy high Dexterity and light armor and feats and talents all designed around not being hit at all. However, due to the limited protection light armor provides, if you are hit, nearly all of the damage gets through to you. Or you can buy a high strength so you can handle wearing extremely tough, durable armor. Your dexterity is low due to the weight of the armor, so things hit you more often, but it takes a high roll or an armor-defeating hit in order to get any of that damage past the armor and to the character.

DnD decided to stick with the more generic Armor Class, where AC accounts for both your ability to dodge and withstand damage. It also ties Hit Points more closely into your character's ability to take damage and continue functioning, with no standard for extreme damage or long-term inability due to combat. ED has Wounds as well as Hit Points. Wounds represent extreme or long-term damage that limits a character's ability to do something. The first Wound is "free" but each subsequent Wound gives the character a cumulative -1 to just about everything they do.

Another aspect that I like in both is that they have taken a lot of the rules for roleplaying OUT of the game. Much of the "fluff" has been eliminated or minimized. In this way, you can play a, say, dwarf, any way you want to. You are not locked into the standard DnD concept of greedy dwarves who distrust elves and covet gold and gems. Or bearded dwarf females (ugh!).

While ED has a good, strong back story of events, and gives some elements about the races, the rules do tell you as a player to use those aspects you find fun and ignore the rest, if you choose.

4e also borrowed a concept from ED in magic items. In ED you could get threaded items which grew and became more powerful with your character over time, and minor threaded items and minor magic items were fairly common and available. While that concept did not make it into 4e, it has revamped the way magic weapons are powered so that they can tie into character concepts, they can empower the character with new abilities and/or increase existing abilities, and they are cheaper and easier to acquire and/or transfer the magic to a different weapon, making it easier for players to keep enchantments but use them on weapons that are more "in concept" for their characters.

On many other comparison blogs they discuss how 4e is "more like an MMORPG." This statement I simply don't understand; the concepts that MMORPGs use come directly from DnD and its related games, not the other way around. While they may not have explicitly stated it in previous editions, the concept of having a tank/defender/meat shield up front to take the damage and keep things occupied, a striker/scrapper/blaster to do melee or ranged damage, a leader/support/healer to buff the party, and a controller/crowd control/debuffer to hinder the opponents is the classic "standard" setup for any party in any RPG. I find this amusing as every edition of DnD from the brown paper covered through today has always recommended the party consists of a Fighter (Defender), Rogue (Striker), Cleric (Leader), and Wizard (Controller). And, by their very nature, most classes fit into one of those roles predominantly. And, like other editions, most classes have secondary roles they are good at, too. A Fighter can be a decent Striker, for example, and a Cleric can fit into either Controller or Defender roles with grace.

Both ED and 4e have rules that allow characters to overcome damage fairly easily. This is part of the concept of the characters all being "heroes" and part of the upper 1% of the population that have these magical abilities. In ED, the Recovery Test is limited by the character's Toughness, and may be done after an hour post-combat and after 1 minute of rest and concentration. Whatever you roll is subtracted from your current damage. In 4e, you have a number of Healing Surges you can do per day, based on your class, race, and/or Constitution. You have one special Surge you can do during an encounter, called a Second Wind. Either way, recovery tests and healing surges minimize the need for healing magic and allow the characters to do more in a day instead of the old style of "fight-rest for 8 hours-heal-fight-rest for 8 hours-heal" routine that frequently took up a lot of game time in previous editions of DnD. In either system, I find it is still ridiculously easy to kill characters, overwhelm them, and make them use these precious resources. Healing magic is still needed and much gold is still spent on healing potions.

The one thing I miss the most from ED is the ability to roll multiple dice and the ability to reroll maxed dice. There was always that tinge of "a first level windling could kill a dragon with one blow" lurking in the background that made for some extra excitement while playing. Many of my favorite stories from ED involve lucky or unlucky times when the players or the DM got maxes, allowing for extraordinary results on challenges and tests. Even with all the changes that were made, DnD 4e just isn't designed for that type of randomness, so it was not included.

4e has become a lot like ED in how it is played. It resolves many of the rules issues with previous editions, incorporates some good concepts from other game systems (like ED) to keep people playing and doing heroic things, and allows for more variations to many aspects of a game world where things had become somewhat rote. ED (now provided by Redbrick Limited) continues to be a fun game system that has some core concepts I really enjoy, namely in how it handles armor class/hitting and its use of multiple dice and rerolling maxes. You should play whatever RPG you enjoy most.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Reinventing the Wheel

I believe that President Obama is trying to make America a better place. I think that President Bush tried to do what was right for America (in my estimation, failing more often than succeeding, but still). However, in both cases, and with the Congress in general, they seem to be adamant about reinventing the wheel rather than seeing the wheels already made and picking one or two to serve as a model for what will work in America.

Take health care. There are, literally, a dozen or more examples of universal health care that American leadership could copy. Each of these examples has been proven over many years of successful use. We could send experts to Japan, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Hawaii (yes, it has had a form of universal health care since the '50s which works great), and other nations, learn what works and what doesn't, and implement a plan based on those countries with a proven track record. Easy, right? No, instead we are going our own way, recreating the wheel in a hodge-podge of ideas that involve kick-backs and concessions to insurance companies and specific state lobbies. It will likely fail not because it is a bad idea but because it was poorly implemented.

Take banking reform. A number of banking systems were barely affected by the recent economic crash. Why not model the changes to the American system after the stable and secure systems of these nations (Canada, for example, et al) rather than making it up as we go and being reactionary to what happened, rather than proactive to making the system safe and secure? So far, at least, it looks like the changes being implemented aren't doomed to failure; I'm just not sure they will make the system safe and secure against the next threat to the economy.

Energy is another example where America could take notes from the rest of the world. Germany and Canada, for example, have multiple, much safer nuclear power plants using deuterium as their water source and which don't create the same weapons-grade cake that standard nuclear plants do. These plants have a great track-record and provide power to millions cheaply and efficiently. In America's quests to be energy independent, why aren't they looking at these types of power plants?

America has always been a leader to the world. However, in some areas, other nations have the proven track record and have discovered the efficiencies that America has not needed until recently. It would make the most sense if the country would take the best ideas around the world and implement those, rather than spending years and millions (billions?) to reinvent what already works.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Feeling a Little Dumb

I got a letter from the IRS saying I forgot to sign my tax return this year. Since I normally file online, but can't any more due to location, it is not all that surprising that I forgot a silly little step like that.

However, the letter informing me of that issue specifically says that I had to return the signed declaration within 20 days of the date of the letter. If I lived in America and, therefore, didn't use the entire system that caused me to forget to sign my return in the first place, I could have accomplished that. But I live in Canada now; I received the letter after the 20 days had elapsed.

For as nice a country as Canada is, there are a few areas of failing, one of which is the postal service. For as much as Americans complain about the post office, it still is one of the world's largest and most efficient companies, moving tons of mailing quickly around the nation. Canada's postal service is not nearly as big, efficient, or fast. It doesn't deliver on Saturdays, Sundays, most holidays, and when it feels like it (for example, if the carrier feels the snow is too bad during the winter, they simply don't deliver to that area that day).

As an inadvertent test, my wife and I have sent items to the same location (my mom's house) from both Calais, ME (just across the border) and from our house in Canada. Those sent from Calais usually take two to three days to reach its destination on the other side of the country. Those sent from here average about 13-15 days.

I called the IRS this morning and, luckily, I can simply send in the signed declaration without issue (I neither owe nor am owed money), so they just want the declaration to attach to my return. So we put it in the mail today for its at least two week journey to Texas this morning.

Good luck, mail, good luck!