A Game of Musical Squares

(Apologies if this section is dry. More dramatic ranting at the end of the article).

Combat in D&D 4E revolves around three abstract concepts: hit rolls, combat status and moving around the squares. Hit rolls and combat status we are all familiar with, especially if anyone has played any iteration of Final Fantasy (“Blind” reduces your chance to hit, “Silenced” prevents you from casting spells). One of the biggest additions is to ability to shift, push or pull opponents or allies on the board. Paladins can teleport to an ally in peril to absorb a blow; avengers (read: ninjas) can suddenly vanish into the thin air and pops out next to a marked opponent and wizards can send foes flying with cracks of thunder.

This is not a new concept, at least in the realms of tactical RPGs for the computers. Dynasty Tactics and Romance of the Three Kingdoms 12, featured the ability to push enemy armies into traps or to lure them into craftily setup combo chains. Disagora for the PS allows you to throw (yes throw!) your allies at an enemy to damage them.

For D&D 4E, forcing enemies to move squares is a big highlight. Certain high-level powers allow melee classes to move and attack, and make another move and attack again if certain conditions are met. Coupled with Attack of Opportunities, pulling a foe next to you so that you get a free attack on him if he should turn his attention on someone else is neat. In addition, now that certain powers can create zones that afflicts penalties and cause damage, the push, pull and shift mechanics make combat in D&D 4E more tactical than before.

Sleek and Slimmer

Having considered the picture of D&D 4 combat, let take a look at the mechanics. Like its forebears, D&D 4E draws a line between the role-playing bits and the crunchy combat parts, however many of the familiar elements are streamlined.

Gone are the charts for Basic Attack Bonus and Saves – they have been replaced by the Attributes itself. A Fortitude save is one-half of your level plus your Strength or Constitution modifier, whichever it is better. Attack rolls are based on the Attributes (Strength, Dexterity, Charisma etc.) itself. This is one thing worthy of note, because personally I like it. It is more elegant and makes the system easier to understand.

There are some new concepts to grasp, though; saving throws are totally revamped, powers come with three possible “cooldown” – at-will, encounter and daily, and healing is now a whole new ball game. Suffice to say, those make D&D 4E different enough from D&D 3.5 to have an integer increment in its version number.

So how does it fares?

Let’s talk about D&D 4E combat in terms of as a combat system; that is, let’s forget that it is part of a role-playing game. On paper, from reading the rules, it feel greats. Instead of just a “my BAB is higher than your AC, suckers”, the system encourages the players to think carefully about their moves. There are a lot of black and white cases in the game – many powers inflict damage even on a miss (usually half), and there’s no ways to resist someone from trying to pull you into an elemental volcano or a gateway straight to hell. This encourages players and DMs alike to think harder during combat, instead of relying on high stats and good rolls.

As a closed system, D&D 4E combat succeeds in getting rid of grey areas. I think the designers have hunted down every possible grey areas in combat so that a DM rarely has to “wing” it. However, I don’t really approve of how the grey areas are dealt with; usually the system just gun for the simplest solution. For example, if a zone containing raging hell fire intersects with a zone of the bitterest winter storm, nothing happens. They don’t affect each other at all.

The System in Context of a RPG

I have discussed what I think of the combat system as a ‘stand-alone combat resolution system’, akin to a war-game and such. It’s time to realise that this system is part of a role-playing game too, and I would humbly submit my notion: it’s horrible. Mainly because the system is designed to be closed, which could run automatically by itself and the DM could be a human CPU. (Some may notice that I have been really rigid and restrained while discussing the system as a combat system. It’s to be fair to its design. Now I would try to be more…eh, dramatic).

Of course., there are advantages to a closed system. It’s consistent. It encourages mastery of the system, which pleased achievement-oriented and competitive people. It removes GMs’ fiat which could be a bad thing at times, and reduces the number of times the GM has to come up with spot rules on the go.

However, there are various problems with a closed system for a RPG. First, the suspension of disbelief. If the combat system is just a board game, just a miniature game, fine, I’ll don’t think we need the suspension of disbelief. But this is a role-playing game, where you are supposed to use your imagination, yet the game is so rigid and black and white. There this which boggles me to no end – a druid can choose a wild-shape, no bigger than her size, but regardless whether you choose to be a fericious saber-tooth turtle, or a bear, your stats do not change. You can shapeshift to become a panther and still have a lousy Dexterity of 9. Good luck running, don’t trip over yourself.

Likewise, the rules concerning zones. In Lord of the Rings Online, certain creatures can throw fire at you, leaving a pool of fire in the wake of its flame breath. Now the Loremaster has a skill called “Gust of Wind”, which animation shows the Loremaster conjuring a burst of air at its location. I always think it will be cool if that could put out fires on the ground (the Rune-keeper has an AoE ice attack; it would be cool if that would put out fires too). Computers are limited by their programming, so it would be hard to implement such things (though Nethack’s “the developers thought of every situation!” tried admirably) .

I think it is kind of sad while, for me personally, that for a paper and pen role-playing game, we are asked to switch off our brain when it comes to grey areas. It is a great chance for players to think out of the box, and for a GM to see what innoative solutions his players can come out with. But the rules just say “those zones don’t interfere with each other”. Other examples include “the environment don’t affect the manifestation of powers”, which mean even if a typhoon hits the combat area, that zone of fire is not going out.

The human brain can be engaged to handwave those rigid rules away – “magic , or some other power is sustaining the field of fire and so they are immune to the environments”. That is valid; I just think it is sad – when I think computer role-playing games should have more of the flexibility of its pen and paper ancestors, pen and paper RPGs are taking on more of its more limited counterparts’ aspects.

To be fair to the D&D 4E combat system, for it to work some of those rules have to be black and white, or it would be just too darn complicated. For example, take the pushing mechanics. The same crack of thunder that send a small scrawny goblin flying three steps away has the same effects on a gigantic stone troll. But to factor in the weight and size of the target would mean more rules, making the combat less playable. Likewise, is there a good solution to the overlapping of zones, and having the environments affecting spells and powers and what-nots? I’m sure there is, but it would involve either lots of rulings, or player-DM negotiation, which is not desirable considering D&D 4E’s design goals.

(What are D&D 4E’s design goals? From reading the book, I believe it is to create a role-playing game that is consistent and fair, and which targets a demographics of role-players who are competitive in nature. So the DM’s power are naturally curbed).

Granted, nowhere in the rules did it say that the DM is not allowed to wing in a certain situation, but from how the grey areas are handled (or from the lack of grey areas), I infer that DMs are bound to the same combat rules as the players, and deviation is not encouraged.

Sustaining Belief in an Imagined Reality

To sum up how I feel about D&D 4E combat system, I would just say this “Effective, but artificial”. As a combat system, it works. It encourages thinking and planning your moves. But it is rigid and asks players at times to leave imagination at the doorstep. True, there are flavour text to the powers. Those text means nothing though. Being ‘scared’ is just the target moving away from you. Any other implications of being terrified at the enemies which are not cover by the rules does not count (I don’t think it is possible to persuade a terrified enemy to surrender). But it is a closed box. Your ice storm is not going to put out fire summoned by a warden, and if you shapeshifted into a hawk it doesn’t you can fly. You get things done the way the rules say.

For example, imagine the Balrog in combat with some PCs. A halfing fighter manages to push the great and mighty Balrog away with a power and he can do it because the rules say so. It’s like Lu Bu managing to trick Zhuge Liang, or Drizzt being tripped by a halfing. The DM can come up with explanations each time when those things happen, but honestly if I am the DM, I would stop trying after the third time. The system just messes up expectations. For example, in a computer game, it is like I design a gigantic stone troll but no matter how tough he looks on the screen, it doesn’t matter because in the database I gave him a Strength of 3.

This is why I say the system is artificial. So that the system can be fair, characters could be balanced and the DM and players are on equal term, it is a necessary evil. However this is not my style of play. It also lead me to imagine that D&D 5E could be just a board game like Descent, where the DM just set up the enemies according to some rules, and shuffle a deck of random Skill Encounters card which comes for a particular quest.

What I admire though, is how D&D 4E become streamlined from D&D 3.5. What I would leave out would be the entire rigid design of the power systems and the “What you see is not what you get” feel.

On Issues of Portability

Another flaw of the entire system is the ‘shift, pull and push’. It is great for the epic feel of the game, the anime-combat style akin to Final Fantasy Advent Children. However, if you watch enough espiodes of Mythbusters, you would know that anything that send you flying away for more than 6 metres is going to be painful. This system may not work well in other genres, such as modern warfare. Shotguns don’t push anyone at all, and a grenade don’t send people flying (they fill you with little sharpnels). Of course it is a non-issue now, for this is D&D, not D20. It’s not a generic system after all.

Final Words

If I am to play a game of D&D 4E, I will defintely be asking for permission to wing certain aspects of the game. Martial powers which push creatures would take creature size into consideration. Zones and the environment would interfere with certain powers.  It may make the game less consistent, less fair, but for my players and me, it may be more fun.

The powers are really bloated now. I think there might be a way to condense a class to just a few core powers. Classes would be the topic of my next article on D&D 4E.

Oh yes, before you comments, do take note I am usually a narrator GM who prefer rules-lite, wing-it games like Fate and Nobilis. That’s the context where I am coming from.

The tickets for VGL @ Singapore were on sales at SISTIC since March, but there weren’t really marketing and promotion till May, which I found strange. The event was organised in conjunction with the CG Overdrive, and when the tickets are out (during the early bird period), there was no announcements, no updates on both the official VGL and CG Overdrive website. It was frustrating until a friend, who often go to such concerts, helped me to locate the page at SISTIC where I could book the tickets. Only later then there is a site called VGL-SEA (VGL for Southeast Asia?) launched. Even for the official site for this concert, there are no previews, just a site hastily put together. Posters for VGL only sprang up around the IT hub of the city, only in May. Isn’t that a bit too short a period for marketing effort?

Also considering that in May there was a Final Fantasy concert at the Esplanade and the tickets were completely wiped cleaned by late March. Considering that VGL coming to Singapore is such a rare opportunity, shouldn’t the marketing efforts be ramped up a bit? Marketing +0 (Medicore).

Sound Test

Marketing, of course, is just something that happens before the event. The real meat is during the show itself. So how does it stands? Let’s talk about the entire performance first. The symphony is the NUS Symphony. Sadly, some people I knew were put off by that as it is not a “full-fledge symphony”, and the price tag (SGD 55 just for the lowest tier ticket) just put them off. So did the NUS Symphony performed well?

I don’t know.

You see, there was a bit of problem with the mixing at the indoor stadium. The first piece, Metal Gear Solid 2 Opening Theme feels a bit underwhelming. There is no sense of listening to a live performance. It was like, listening to a recording of the performance itself. Of course, it is performed live, but something seems to be lacking in recreating the “live atmosphere”. My friend pointed out that the brass was too weak.

Later, they compensate (or attempt to try to? Or I guess they did try) by boosting the volume. That backfires, I guess. To me, the volins, strings and trumpet, when they reach high pitch, are especially jarring on the ear. When I listen to a piece of music, I like to follow the subtle things beside the main instrument playing on the foreground – things like the strings, the brass and motif. However, they were all clashing with each other. It’s hard to pick out the strings when something else is overpowering it. This I feel, is not the Symphony’s fault, but rather a mixing problem. I would really suggest VGL looks into acoustics next time for their next performance at Singapore.

While the NUS Symphony definitely is a notch lower when compared to the Singapore Symphonic Orchestra or the Eminence Ensemble, one thing for sure is that they tried their darn best. The pieces when the acoustic problem cleared up for a while (due to the virtue of the composition, I guess) are the Snake Eater theme and Chrono Trigger/Chrono Cross piece. Those are quieter pieces and they do literally suck you in. It also helps that for the second part of the show, there were strong players, such as the composers themselves. Kudos to the lead violinist for playing the Chrono Cross piece.

The vocals, from the NUS Choir, are well done though. They do sound exactly like what I would imagine them to be, but they seems to be lacking in numbers for a really bombistatic performance. The music seems to be crowding them out.

Performance +1 (Average), +2 (Fair) for the second part
Mixing -1 (Terrible)

Comparison

The only other concert I have been to is Passion, by Eminence Ensemble and I afraid that VGL @ Singapore, in terms of performance, lags behind Eminence. Then again, all the strong players from the Ensemble were presented and they were a professional one. However, one sore sticking point is that the ticket for the event is a lot more cheaper (yes, Singaporeans are picky about pricing). Maybe it’s wrong of me to compare the two, since Passion was a quartet event, more close-up and intimate whereas VGL is a large scale one.

I won’t comment on the light shows and the multimedia display. Perhaps I am just not used to large scale concert. For me, I prefer a quieter one where one could focus entirely on the music. The lights sometime just hit full into my eyes and I have to close it. Perhaps the other concert-goers are more used to such events, so I’ll let this pass.

But though – showing photos of cosplay during the rendition of One Winged Angel doesn’t struck me as a good idea. Perhaps I am too rigid or some such. I rather they ask for permission to put on more fantastic fan art. (Maybe it’s just because I am not a fan of cosplay?)

Research, Research, Research

Singapore is between the East and the West, though largely put, people tend to prefer the East (Japan) when it comes to music. There was someone who I would dub “Final Fantasy 7 Fan of the Year” when he kept shouting out for One Winged Angel. That the reception for Chrono Cross, Castlevania and other FF7 pieces way outweight any other pieces.

For example, it was mentioned that Metroid is one of the most requested piece ever. The thing is, I doubt Metroid is that big in Singapore. Picking Halo, World of Warcraft and Diablo are the pieces (and checking out the audience’s response) that resonated more with the audience.

I would humbly suggest that VGL, if they are to return to Singapore, to leave out the Tron segment.

I am sure going out on a limb for this, but I think VGL ought to pick music that are good instead of just famous. How many time have we heard One Winged Angel, anyway? Recently, there are many games with good music (Shadow Hearts, Ace Combat series, Okami) but are not famous. Heck, there are many classic with great music which are really underpresented (Lufia, Final Doom, Tyrian, Quest for Glory, Ultima). Secondly, I would also suggest re-arrangement to a certain extent. The front part of the show seems to be straight covers, and adding in that somehow the playing sounds recorded, I find myself drifting off to boredom-land.

All in all, I have a fun time, however I have to say it doesn’t measured up to Passion by Eminence Ensemble.

To describe Dragon Warriors with a few words: gritty, lethal, immersive, evocative, written with soul and spirit and simple.

The Good: Simple to understand roll under system, distinctive classes, rooted in historical basis, writing is evocative, settings feel authentic and fantastic at the same time, elegant method of dealing with armour, detailed world with beautiful maps, an atmospheric introductory adventure

The Bad: Is 5 books put together as 1, rules are only explained in the middle of the book, a couple of classes imbalance, introductory adventure is heavily scripted, spot rules are inconsistent

The Quirks: Art goes from “meh” to “wow”, uses comics to explain the rules, arguably a “complete book”, some of its thinking may be considered “antiquated”, sometimes you roll a D20, sometimes it’s a 2D10

Introduction

For those who need an introduction, Dragon Warriors was a fantasy role-playing game that came out during 1985 and was sold in a set of “gamebooks” style paper-backs. I was fortunate to get my hand on the first two books as second-hand copy, and there’s something about it that got me hooked. Now, all the books that make up the rules of the game (save for two campaign books) have been complied into one tome which is Dragon Warriors, the Mongoose edition.

What sets Dragon Warriors apart from other fantasy games at that time are the rules (it’s simple and straightforward), the theme and an eerie familiarity with our world. Goblins are more fairy-tales than Tolkien, Elves more faerie than uber-races that some RPGs portray them as.

Even the classes’ names tell something or two – the main fighting classes are knights and barbarians, two polar opposites. And the default setting takes place in a feudal land, and the core book goes on a great deal about setting the stage – what is it like to be in a feudal kingdom, the disregard people would have for adventurers who don’t fit into society and why people still becomes adventurers.

System

Dragon Warriors have five stats – Strength, Reflexes, Intelligence, Psychic Talent and Looks, and are determined with a roll of 3d6. Your derived stats are Attack, Defence, Magical Attack, Magical Defence, Evasion, Perception and Stealth. High score in the core five characteristics give bonuses to the derived stats (sounds familiar?)

Combat is a straight forward D20 roll under your Attack minus your opponent’s Defence. One of the shinning points about Dragon Warrior’s combat system is that of armour. Each armour has an armour factor (AF) and each weapon an armour bypass roll. For example, plate mail has an armour factor of 5, while a two-handed sword has an armour bypass roll of d10. So if you strike with a two-handed sword, and you score a roll of 6 and above on the d10, your strike goes through the armour. All weapons does a fixed amount of damage.

Combat is lethal if the dice hates you. A two-handed sword does 5 points of damage, while an average rank 12 Knight has only 22 Health Points. 5 blows is enough to finish off a mighty opponent.

There are 4 variants of magic using classes but all are base on the same principle (see below). The Sorcerer has access to powerful spells but is limited in combat, and uses Spell Points to power his spells. The Mystic can cast spells till he failed to make a fatigue check. An Elementalist can pick up to three elements to learn and have a different MP pool for each of them. The Warlock is a fighter/mage who can cast two different ‘buff’ spells per combat round. Each of them is themed differently (Sorcerer – artillery, Mystics – self sustaining, Elementalist – druids and roleplaying magic, Warlock – sword wielding fireball throwing warriors)

Magic is grouped under two categories – direct and indirect. Direct spells affect your very essence and include spells such as Weakness, Petrify and Enthrall and are defended with Magical Defence. The same rules are used as per combat – roll 2d10 (not d20) under your Magical Attack subtract your opponent’s Magical Defence. If you manage to do so, your spell affects your opponent.

Direct attack spells, on the other hand, include fire balls, lightning bolts and the like. They pit the spell’s Speed score against the target’s Evasion, and use pretty much the same roll as attacks and direct spells. Simple and easy to remember, except for the wrinkle about when to use a D20 and when to use a 2D10.

Rules for ‘special cases’ are pretty much the same. The GM decides the difficulty rating for an obstacle. If the characteristic in question is higher than the difficulty rating, then no roll is needed. If it is the other way round, the character must succeed in rolling D20 under his characteristic to overcome the obstacle.

The rules of Dragon Warriors, however, do run into some pitfalls. Spot rules are problematic in a sense that each is a mini-system by itself, and are inconsistent. For example, the Mystic has an ESP and Premonition skill and their success rate are represented as a percentile roll. The Warlock also has a psionic skill,but it requires a D20 roll under Psychic Talent

Assassins, or the thief of the game, has different spot rules for almost everything, from memorising documents to picking locks. Then there are rules for fright attacks (which uses a d12) and a cumbersome but “hey, it kind of make sense” system for gaze attacks. Basically, you have 40% of making eye contacts with creature like a Medusa (if you do make eye contact, you are subjected to a Magical Attack). For each 10% chance you drop from making eye contact, you take a penalty to your fighting skills.

All those varied system can be confusing at first, and to make it worse, Dragon Warriors is written in an old school style (well, it was written in 1985!) and the new all-in-one edition is just re-arrangement of the material. Stats, characteristics and classes’ abilities are all described before the rules, unlike core books nowadays, which describe how the rules work (what is an ability, what is an ability modifier, how do you make a roll etc.) before going into the details.

The re-arrangement may also befuddle beginners. For example, in the first book of the 1985 series, the fighters class were introduced. Later down the series, new abilities and skills were given to those classes. In the new edition, those ‘expansion’ were placed in the early chapters, leaving one wondering what on earth is an Armour Bypass roll even before that term itself is mentioned.

One glaring omission is that there are no rules for social interactions. As far as I can tell, after the first chapter, the Looks characteristic is never mentioned again, except for a list of curses later on.

Classes may also be imbalanced. The Knight at higher rank is nearly invincible in melee, and a Sorcerer at 12th rank can clean the clock of a whole legion of Knights with his spells if he is well prepared.

Biggest Good: Core system is a simple roll under

Biggest Bad: Rules are rather disorganised.

Biggest Quirk: The spot rules for each and every different thing

Mood and Setting

Dragon Warriors is set in a quasi-historical version of medieval Earth. The world is called Legend, and it has our versions of Britain, King Author, the Roman Empire and the like. This is a good thing, for it give a sense of grounding to the campaign. At the same time, it is not a direct analog. Lots of fantastical elements were added, such as the mage-legions of the New Selentine Empire, the various wight-kings of Ellseland and even the infamous blasting of the Spyte. Myths in our world are probably truth in the world of Dragon Warriors.

This helps a GM, in my opinion, to get ideas for adventures and to plan encounters. No one knows what is the relationship between a blacksmith and the government in Minas Tirth, but Dragon Warriors set this out explicitly: the blacksmith is likely to be the vassal of a liege-lord. His obligation is to him first so do not expect just to swagger into a castle and buy a suit of full plate mail just because you have the coin.

The backgrounds section describe a feudal way of life in an accessible manner, and in a writing style that is casual and informative. One of my beefs with the new A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying is that certain background materials are lazily given away in bullet points form. Not in Dragon Warriors. Well-written paragraphs describe the people’s way of life, while subscripts lead you to footnotes where interesting details are explained. You have the feeling that you are reading a treatise written by a real life scholar (who is having fun while at it), instead of a game-book.

Though the history aspect of the setting lend weight and gravity, it also lead to what some may consider as “antiquated” advice, such as that the assassin is not suitable for a PC class (it makes sense, but I doubt my players would be happy with that) and of course, the importance of marching order and having a light source! Dragon Warriors has no qualms describing adventurers as being primarily motivated by looting old tombs and fighting off monsters for a sum of silver.

Lending more authenticity to the ‘historical feel’ of the game is that of languages. The authors have even include a family tree of languages! In those chapters you catch a glimpse of far-off exotic places, such as Zinj and Khitai, which are probably Legend’s analogue of India and China. That languages are an important part of the game make it feels decidedly old-school. There are also spot rules for learning languages, whether it is to hire a tutor or to live among the community for a while.

One of Dragon Warriors’ best point is the setting. It writes of the world from the eyes of a wonder-filled traveler. Without using the real world per se, it opens up possibilities. By basing introducing elements that reminds me of a historical Earth, it helps me to set expectations and fill in the gaps where the authors do not mention. It’s not as restrictive as Mythic Europe in this sense.

Biggest Good in Settings: Evocative and hauntingly familiar but different

Biggest Bad in Settings: Some may dislike it because it is just not fantastical enough and impose some restrictions (a female PC, for example, has been pointed out as a liability)

Biggest Quirks: There is no rhyme or reason as to the order of how each region is presented, and the amount of details differ. Ellseland, a feudal England-like island, is given lots of attention, while some places are just “no one ever dwells at this god-forsaken place. Period. Next stop!”

Other Stuff

There is a minimal bestiary at the end of the book, with stat-blocks but with most of the fluff removed. Sorcerers can craft magical items, Mystics can forge magical weapons while Warlocks can create some incredible armour and swords. There are rules for poisons, diseases and insanities, but nothing mind-blowing, yet are usable in their simplicity ( a strong poison is a 3d6 roll under your Strength to resist, for example).

It is not those stuff are ‘meh’ or badly written. They are just pieces of a bigger part (to me); a bad setting can’t be saved by charts after charts of poison. A clumsy rule-sets cannot be amended by having lots of crunch.

There is an atmospheric introductory adventure, which besides introducing the rules, also teaches about the cultural influences of the setting, such as feudalism. At the beginning, the party comes across an old man who was unfairly placed in stocks. But he refused to be freed, for he was placed there under proper authority (even though it was an unfair punishment) and he should remain there lest he gets into even bigger trouble.

Unfortunately, the adventure has one loop-hole. It requires the PCs to get hold on a certain MacGuffin or else they barely have a slim chances of getting the best outcome. There are also too little clues, too little the players can do besides visiting the all-important NPC, to ensure a good outcome.

Look and Feel

I am of mixed feeling here. Some of the black and white art are painted in different hues of grey, and are a wonder to behold. Then there are some drawn in just black ink and looks like outcast from a clip art library. Finally, there are a series of comics used to present the rules in the game. Honestly, it is cool idea but was better implemented in the 1985 books. The new comics look jagged and unpleasing to the eyes, but perhaps I am not used to this style

And the maps are pretty. Enough said

Final Scores

Simple rules, evocative writing styles, detailed world, complete game = 5/5 (substance)

Disogranised rules, mixed quality of art, chapters are organised in a rather hazardous manner = 3/5(style)

Sleeping Gods, and the campaign world Legend, I feel, is the real reason why Dragon Warriors shine. In this review I hope to explain why. Needless to say, this review is abound with spoilers.

Summary: Sleeping Gods is a set of seven episodic dungeon-crawls which could be linked together as a campaign. It will bring 1st rank adventurers (competent when compared to the ordinary mortal) to 13th rank heroes (legends of the world). It is tied with a rather loose narrative and gives lots of wiggle rooms for the aspiring GM to add in more adventures between each episode.

The most important thing about Sleeping Gods is that it is, in a way, an interactive cultural and historical lesson. Albion, the kingdom where the players are mostly going about, is based on a feudal system much like the medieval times and its elements are practically abound everywhere in the book. There’s also one adventure which would expand the horizon of the characters when they take on an exotic trading voyage.

The Goods: In short, Sleeping Gods is immersive. Small details are everywhere to remind the players of the game world. As Legend is quite similar to our world in some ways, this helps to keep the adventures rooted. The dungeon crawls are reasonably managable and each has their own unique elements.

The second good thing about the campaign is the atmosphere. There is always a sense of danger, the unknown and something familiar. Much of the ‘lore’ in the campaign are based on our world and remains mostly the same – but the context is different. This is different from just plugging in the names, like what Final Fantasy series did to Shiva.

An over-arching element of the campaign is the cultural and social norms aspect. Most of the time, the adventurers would be under a liege lord. The lord grants them social status, a stable income, boarding and basically, respect from others. In return the adventurers can only keep 10% of the treasures which they have found. This must be most discomforting to an adventurer from the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk!

To be fair though, the player’s liege lord is fair and would grant the loot back to the players as boon, but the emphasis is clear – there’s a social norm to follow. Duty and loyalty are common themes throughout.

The Bad: That said, the dungeon crawls’ designs belong to the days of yore. One-wrong-step-and-you-are-dead death traps exist (in the first adventure!) but thankfully, their numbers within one dungeon can be counted with just one hand (even if you have your ring finger bitten off).

Each adventure assume the only motivation for the adventurers is to get rich. Details abound as to how much each trinket would fetch the adventurers at the market place. GMs who wish to involve the characters more into the narrative and the dungeons would have to come up with their own hooks.

There are some inconsistencies between each adventures. For example, each monster has a rank-equivalent. This is present throughout the stat blocks. However, the second adventure has that missing; the first adventure has it as the last line of the block while the third places it as the first.

Second, the rules for stat check in Dragon Warriors goes like this: assign the task a difficulty. If the player’s stat is above that difficulty, it is an automatic success; if not, he has to roll under it on 1d20. This is used for the first adventure – difficulties for each task are given. However, throughout the other, this is missing. All obstacles more or less have the wording “Roll under stat on a D20″.

Quirks: Spot rules abound throughout the book – there’s an obscure reference to what would happen to a Sorcerer who has his left hand injured (all Sorcerers are left-handed in Dragon Warriors). This may be all right considering that Dragon Warriors is rules-lite compared to many of its fantasy-based brethren but it can be annoying when you need to look something up.

The second strange thing about the adventures are that while each has a climax which involves an encounter with a demi-god being, it may not happen at all depending on the player’s choices. (There is only one “scripted” instance where the players would confront with one of them). This sandbox style may eventually lead the characters doing things which could be totally anti-climatic, unless you railroad them (heaven forbids), think fast or have a back-up plan.

The adventures in detail

The title of the campaign, “Sleeping Gods”, actually refers to the various forgotten heroes, demi-gods and deities of Legend. At the point of the campaign, the True Faith (an analog of Christianity) has pretty much spread throughout the world – many old gods and religions were either destroyed or forgotten.

Each adventure typically feature one of those Sleeping Gods; they, however, strangely do not play a big part in the narrative. In fact, players may not even meet them at all if they are too cautious.

1. The King Under the Forest

This has all the vibes of the Arthurian legend; a powerful warrior-king who is kept in stasis by a wizard and would return again when the land has need of him again. The adventurers explore the tomb of the king and may have a chance to become his vassal. The old-school design influences are clear within the first room – death-traps, puzzles which involve trial and error (and probably loss of a few lives) to solve and a tomb which is unlike any real tomb. GMs may wish to rework this adventure a little to fit their tastes – the dungeon crawl may snap some players’ suspension of disbelief.

2. A Shadow on the Mist

A much pretty thought-out dungeon crawl than the prior one (as in, it’s more logical) and pretty thick with atmosphere. The adventurers are sent into a haunted dell to find the fate of a tax-collector who may have wander into there. There is a chance that the players may never come across the big bad boss in the area, unless they are really doing treasure hunting. Careful players who get in, get to the objective and get out fast would miss the “fun” part.

3. Hunter’s Moon

The adventurers and their liege lord are on a sea voyage when a storm wrecks their ship. The ship has to dock to repair, but the cove they have found is near a ruined citadel. The adventurers are dispatched to investigate the building, eliminate all threats and return with treasures (remember, they only get to keep 10%).

The biggest problem with this adventure is that there is an exposition done at the beginning which explain the history of the citadel, and is quite accurate. Players could just say “Right, this citadel belongs to the worshipers of a banished god and they are all dead. Let’s go back to sleep” and finish the adventure – there’s no compelling need for them to venture in except for treasure-lust.

And as before the players may not run into the demi-god of this adventure; just before the climax, they have a chance to turn back. There might be no exciting ending to this adventure unless the GM has something as back-up.

4. The One-Eyed God

An adventure where the narrative is stronger and much better “scripted” (perhaps that’s the politically correct term for railroading?). An assassin has just escaped after an attempt on the adventurers’ liege lord, and the players are sent to hunt him down. The assassin’s escape route, strangely, is through a barrow. Again, this is one of the case where the adventurers may not meet the aforementioned “sleeping god” unless they are serious pack rats and treasure hunters. The objective (to capture the assassin) has nothing to do with the “sleeping god” in question. GMs are encouraged to be creative.

5. Sins of the Father

A heavily scripted adventure which would eventually led the players to meet one of those “sleeping gods”. It also involve a plot-twist and suspicious players may know the answer (thanks to the work of a movie director whose name is best not mentioned). The plot twist is the weakest link in the adventure; the text instructs the GM to cheat if needed to preserve it. Other than this, the adventure is well done and feature many interesting encounters.

6. Mungoda Gold

A departure from the previous adventure, this is an open-ended adventure which puts the adventurers aboard a trading vessel to the a land which parallels Africa. How the entire adventure might go in the latter stage depends on the actions of the adventurers. The highlight of this adventure, however, is on a group of Khitian adventurers — if I am not wrong, that is the Legend’s version of China. Spot rules for tropical diseases and wearing piece-meal armour are included.

7. The Greatest Prize

This is a strange one. The first part is a free-form adventure where the characters have to infiltrate a castle and make a choice – either to ally with the owner, or take it for their own. The second part is a puzzle-based challenge which could be frustrating because there are only a couple of solutions for each of them (think King’s Quests).

This is, however, not a climax to the campaign or the sort. As an ending adventure it makes for a rather weak conclusion. It’s more of a “the adventurers have reach a higher level of play” as they now owe a castle and could become a force to reckon with.

Conclusion

Irregardless, Sleeping Gods is an enjoyable read and may give some ideas for GMs to chew and think about. There is no need to use all the adventures – the GM can choose to drop one or two out from the arc, or even rearrange them.

The weakest part about Sleeping Gods is the lack of a narrative – it may be very well be its biggest strength as it allows the creative GM to put in one of his own. This makes the dungeon crawls flexible – you can use them stand-alone without the plot elements if you wish to.

Scores

Substance (4/5): The dungeons come with maps and description, and even with red herrings and dead-ends. Cultural information, where applicable, are given and spot rules are provided for special situations. Each adventure is stand-alone and ready for running as “they are”, and each has a different feel and favor.

Style (3.5/5) : Evocative illustrations are placed throughout the book and the book, being in an A4 format, makes it easier to read than its original small paperback ancestor.Maps are well drawn, functional and at the same time, stylish. There are a few formatting inconsistencies. An above average production