New D&D Red Box Thoughts (Part 1)

As I mentioned in the last post, I have acquired a copy of the new Introductory Boxed Set for the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. The packaging of this new boxed set is based on the 1980s "Mentzer" Red Box Basic D&D Set that TSR published in 1983 -- it even uses the same cover art. Wizards of the Coast has two hopes for the product.

First, the are hoping that the product serves as a key introductory product for a new generation of gamers and that this Red Box will be as important to these new gamers 17 years from now as the old Red Box is for many current gamers.

Second, they hope that the nostalgia some "hold out" gamer feel regarding the old Red Box will convince them to give the new edition of D&D a try and that the boxed set itself is of sufficient quality to win these hearts and minds.

It should be noted that the similarities between the two boxed sets is more than cosmetic. While both feature the same inspiring Larry Elmore artwork on the cover, both products are also structured in similar ways with regard to how they present the mechanics of the D&D roleplaying game.

Both the new Wyatt edition and the Mentzer edition use a "Choose Your Own Adventure" solo narrative as a method to introduce players to the concept of roleplaying and to the games mechanical systems. It was an innovation when Mentzer utilized it in the 80s, and Wyatt's design team have improved on the method -- if not on the underlying story. There were fewer "design" decisions for players in the Mentzer edition, but the story was more engaging in the older edition. Not to say that the new introductory narrative is bad, but it is "loose" and lacks a significant emotional punch. One doubts that players will be talking about Traevus the merchant in the same tones that older gamers mention Aleena the Cleric and Bargle the mage.

But players of the Mentzer boxed set can't refer to the time they chose between casting a Freezing Burst at goblin raiders or whether they decided to cast Stone Blood which partially solidifies the blood of ones enemies. Both games have their good moments in presentation, and both are effective in presenting the mechanics and a style of play.

Reading the new Red Box, as a 4e player who has been listening to the hushed rumors that this is a launch product for a 4.5 edition and that a 5th edition is only 2 years away, there were a couple of rules changes that jumped right out at me. These changes are purely from the Player's Book, the DM's book has some changes as well but those will be discussed in part 2.

First, in Paragraph 8 (a Fighter paragraph) the text mentions that the Fighter's weapon damage is equal to the weapon die plus both the character's Strength and Constitution bonus. Huh?! Is this a new ability for all Fighters, is this a change to Charge, or is this an error?

Second, I noticed that Humans now have an Encounter Power like all of the other races. The power is called "Human Versatility." While it isn't overpowered, it is a complete change to the human in the Player's Handbook. It isn't enough of a change to warrant 4.5 cries, especially given that it will be added to the "rules update" that is available for free online, but it is striking none the less.

Third, the new build of fighter is interesting and demonstrates one of the changes that Wizards is promoting in the Essentials line. The new Fighter build relies more on his Melee Basic Attack than PHB Fighters, his "at-will Powers" are stances that modify his Basic Attack rather than attacks in and of themselves. I have to say that this is a thematic change that I like. This seems to fit in with the fiction that D&D emulates. Fighters do use "maneuvers" from time to time, but they are more frequently using tactics or styles and the new Powers reflect that thematic element nicely. They also make Fighters easier for new players to play than in the PHB where all classes required equal book keeping.

I'll discuss more as I read through more of the class choices, but I can say that I am impressed with the presentation style of the product. Though it should be pointed out that this is very much an introductory product and that many experienced gamers -- who don't like reading through introductory style presentations -- will not find this product compelling.

Though I am an experienced gamer, I am enjoying this presentation and find it to be far superior to the "Starter Set" Wizards released in 2008. It compares well to the first Red Box so far, though it doesn't quite match the Denning Black Box in my esteem. Though, to be fair, that would be quite a feat.

The Kübler-Ross Stages of Grief, D&D Encounters, and Me

Those of you who read this blog, may have noticed that I devoted two posts last week to my feelings about the D&D Encounters program. While I don't think my posts were as filled with internet anonymity syndrome and ranting ire as other blogs, I did notice upon reflection that my reaction seemed to match the first two stages of the Kübler-Ross stages of grief.

I normally think of myself as too reflective to be caught up in this model of behavior over something so small -- in the grand scheme -- as whether or not I can buy a copy of the D&D Encounters version of KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS. Apparently I was wrong.

The two posts are filled with Denial and Anger. "They can't do that," "This aggravates me," and other similar statements are scattered throughout the two posts. I'm really quite taken aback by how much these two posts exhibit the emotions expressed in the first two stages of grief, but did I continue through the stages?

In a word...Yes. Yes, I did. I have finally come to acceptance, but not mere "that's okay" acceptance. They got me but good...

Let me explain.

On Saturday, I began bargaining. Not the kind of bargaining that I did in the second post, which was of the "If I express disappointment in the proper tone, maybe they'll release KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS for sale at a later date." No, this was genuine "should I go to a D&D Encounters event and should I see how my schedule this fall lines up with the whole Wednesday schedule" bargaining. I was even wondering if my local store would allow D&D Encounters on Thursdays or Fridays, as one of the commenters here mentioned. I was full on negotiating.

I don't think I ever really experienced depression, at least not in any strong way -- this isn't that important after all. But I did feel a little "remorse" that I am currently not getting to game as much as I want, and that is similar.

So, I decided to do something about it. I went to a D&D Encounters event at my local store. A very nice employee, who is far more familiar with 3.5 and Pathfinder rules than with 4e rules, ran a session for me and four other gamers. The other four players -- a college aged "min/maxer" who typically plays 3.5, a 30 something man who was there to have a good time, and two tween-age girls -- had all participated in the other adventures of the season, but all were relatively new to the rules set. All of them got the concept of roleplaying and having a good time, but none had an encyclopedic knowledge of 4e's rules.

In other words, the group was exactly the audience the program aims to recruit -- one hardcore lapsed gamer, a casual gamer, and two new gamers.

For this group of players, with their level of rules knowledge and expertise, the encounter was quite challenging. Given the GM's lack of familiarity with the rules set, he could only help them in their decision making so much -- and he did his best. I quickly found myself giving small pieces of advice to the newer gamers, but not making their decisions for them (only helping when they asked what something meant and opening discussing my intentions when I acted). We finished the encounter, by the skin of our teeth, and I had a great time.

It was everything my gaming jones needed. It was one of those wonderful, clumsy, new, exploratory gaming sessions you can only have when you have new players experimenting with what they can do. It was great fun with a great group of people.

When I came home from the event, I realized something had happened. I had come to accept D&D Encounters as a vital thing. So much so that I'll be going next week and for many weeks to come -- overall attendance depends on my MBA schedule, but for this quarter Wednesdays are free.

I have not only accepted D&D Encounters, I have fully embraced them. I can't wait to play KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS with this group. I am eager to see what it is like to witness an adventure that introduced me to the hobby through they eyes of people who have no idea what the CAVES OF CHAOS are.

I'm picking up a Red Box in anticipation.

Damn you Wizards!

On Women Gamers

In 2006, I purchased the book Gaming as Culture which contained an excellent chapter by Michelle Nephew that discussed unconscious desire and roleplaying games. The chapter is a section of Dr. Nephew's dissertation. I found some of the observations about the way society views gamers, and how gamers view other gamers (in particular female gamers) interesting and worthy of further investigation. I eventually got a copy of Dr. Nephew's full dissertation and will likely do a read through of the work at some point, as it deserves discussion within the community it examines.

Just to be clear, while the dissertation is highly academic Dr. Nephew is more than a mere academic observer. She also happens to be one of the people behind the excellent gaming company Atlas Games and the designer of one of my favorite games this year Ren Faire.

I think that women in the hobby is an important topic to discuss and that the stereotypes that people, both inside and outside of the gaming community, need a good deal of dispelling.

But we need not go to a full dissertation to find a nice place to start the discussion. Susan J Morris -- Line Editor for the Forgotten Realms Series of Novels -- published a nice blog post over on the Wizards site the other day discussing this very topic.

In Morris' post, her opening paragraph mentions the current "gamer girl" stereotype and describes it as follows:

Part of the current stereotype is that we gamer girls fight with each other in order to compete for attention, status, and all those eligible gamer men.

An entertaining notion to be sure, and I can see why there is that perception. However, while I can’t speak for all gamer women, I really don’t think that sexual competition is at the root of the various rifts. I think it’s about image and branding, and what they do to the everyday life of your everyday gamer woman.

Two things stand out to me in the above paragraph, the concept of sexual politics and the underlying assumption that female gamers have "various rifts" with other female gamers.

My personal experience with female gamers has been consistently positive. The RPGA group I played with when I lived in Reno had a good mix of gamers and included a number of female gamers. I never noticed any sexual competition, or even branding based rifts between the players.

But I do find the concept of personality conflict based on controlling the "branding" of a particular sub-culture to be very interesting, the most interesting concept in Morris' post. In fact, it is one I see taking place among gamers at large. Given that gaming is a relatively small subculture, we all seek to define what it is that constitutes "a gamer." It is one of the reasons we cling to the "celebugamers" like Wil Wheaton so much, we have a desire to create a brand that is more acceptable to main stream society.

Could women gamers be under a similar tension within the gaming community itself? Do you think they have a need to "brand" what a female gamer is in order to help make it more acceptable for the gaming community -- and for main stream society as well?

What have your experiences been? Is it different for "Hobby Gamer" women than for "Roleplaying Women?"

What are your thoughts?

RIP Charles S. Roberts (1930 - 2010) -- Without Roberts, There Would Be No Gaming Hobby as We Know It

Charles S. Roberts, a man who is arguably the most important figure in Hobby Gaming, died on August 20th, 2010 due to complications of emphysema and pneumonia. Roberts was the founder of the Avalon Hill game company, a company that was once a giant in Hobby Gaming. The Baltimore Sun has an extensive, though also error riddled, obituary regarding Roberts and his impact as a game designer and as a historian. High on the error list is the assertion that Roberts sold Avalon Hill to Parker Brothers in the 1960s, when the truth is that Monarch Publishing -- Avalon Hill's chief creditor -- took ownership of the company in 1962.


Roberts' impact on Hobby Gaming is undeniable. Were it not for the publication of Roberts' game Tactics in 1953, it is unlikely that there would have been the "Castles and Crusades" society that led to the creation of Dungeons and Dragons. It is possible, as there was miniatures gaming without Avalon Hill, but given the fact that the original D&D books recommended the ownership of Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival for use in "Wilderness Adventures" it is clear that Gygax was influenced and inspired by Avalon Hill. Gygax also wrote articles in Avalon Hill's The General magazine and viewed Avalon Hill and SPI as two of his chief rivals early in the hobby, but that is another discussion. Hobby Gaming is more that role playing games, it includes Eurogames and games like Battlelore and Formula D.

To quote SPI's "Strategy & Tactics Staff Study #2": Wargame Design (1981):

Modern wargaming on boards, as a hobby, can be traced to one man and one game. In 1953, Charles S. Roberts, a young man in his early twenties, combined an interest in the military and in history to produce a game, which he designed in his spare time, called Tactics.

Roberts release of Tactics, and subsequent founding of Avalon Hill, is entirely responsible for the creation of the board wargaming hobby. His contribution to general hobby gaming is often overlooked, primarily because people view Avalon Hill as a "wargame" company and not a Hobby Gaming company. This is a huge error. To quote Wargame Design again:

The Avalon Hill Company was not founded for the primary purpose of producing wargames. This point is often ignored by those in the hobby who have come to look at Avalon Hill as a source for games. Its true purpose is, and remains, to produce the broad spectrum of adult games for which Roberts felt there would be a market. Roberts felt that the big game publishers, Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, and the like, had ignored the adult game field and he was determined to take advantage of their indifference.

Roberts saw adult games as a field to be exploited and fertile soil for a hobby. He was right. As modern adult games like The Settlers of Catan, Small World, Pandemic, and Tide of Iron, as well as classics like Squad Leader, Gettysburg, Facts in Five, Acquire and Diplomacy, ably demonstrate. Gaming had room to expand into a grand hobby, and it has done so. A quick visit to BoardGameNews.com and a glance at their Gone Cardboard link presents a glimpse of the Hobby games coming out this year. There is a breadth of theme and a breadth play styles represented. This comes as a natural descent from Roberts' original mission. According to Wargame Design, of the eighteen titles published during the Roberts era "nine are non-battle titles representing such diverse fields as law, commerce, and sports."

Due to a number of errors in his approach, Roberts eventually ended up in trouble with his creditors. One of these creditors, Monarch Publishing, took over Avalon Hill and continued publishing games. In fact, the company expanded a great deal under the new leadership. Unlike many brand purchases in the gaming industry, Monarch didn't cherry pick a few old titles and forget the rest. Instead, they continued in the mission set forth by Roberts and produced a wide variety of games for the adult gaming market. They also published a magazine, The General, which served as a way to promote and support their existing line of games.

Though Roberts no longer ran Avalon Hill, his contribution to the creation of a hobby was solidified by the success of his legacy.

In 1975, at the first Origins gaming convention, the first Charles S. Roberts awards were given out to games within the hobby. The winners (games published in 1974) were, Third Reich, Manassas, Strategy and Tactics Magazine, Albion Magazine, and a Hall of Fame Award for Charles S. Roberts himself. For years to come, the Charles S. Roberts Award was a part of the annual Origins Awards and winners included Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, The Space Gamer Magazine, and Car Wars. The Roberts Awards have typically gone to board and wargames, with other Origins categories covering other aspects of hobby gaming. In recent years, the Charles S. Roberts Award has been handed out at the World Boardgaming Championships -- a fact that highlights both the growth and the fracturing of the gaming hobby.

Other than my gratitude for Roberts contribution to Hobby Gaming, I have no connection to him or to Avalon Hill. Like most of the grand masters of the hobby, I never had a chance to meet him and wish that I had.

I am credited with doing some proofreading work on a game (Zulus on the Ramparts! that won a CSR Award this year, but that is a pretty tangential connection.

I would like to thank GROGNARDIA: RIP Charles S. Roberts (1930-2010), and Greyhawk Grognard: R.I.P. Charles S. Roberts for sharing this sad news.

As a gamer, I have recently begun collecting books about the hobby and copies of the games that created the hobby. Maybe I'll crack open my copy of Gettysburg -- square spaces and all -- and play a game in remembrance of one of the founders of Hobby Gaming.

Warhammer 40K Movie -- ULTRAMARINE Trailer Released

They had me at Screenplay by Dan Abnett. Then they added awesome animation, John Hurt, Sean Pertwee, and Terence Stamp.

Games Workshop's various Warhammer Universes are some of the narratively richest game worlds ever constructed, and it is fine time that one of those universes received a compelling film. If only producers would trust the property beyond the direct to dvd market. Not that I'm complaining. This looks awesome. But I'd love to see 40k on the big screen.

Someday a 720 page volume of Dan Abnett's non-fiction writings will be released for the low price of $75 (adjust for inflation properly) and he will be recognized for what he is. What is that, you ask?

Simply one of the most talented and prolific writers of fantasy/sf fiction writing today. He -- along with William King -- changed forever what it means to write "Media Tie-In" fiction. His writing is consistently well constructed and witty. One wonders what particular deal with the Muses Mr. Abnett made.

We are the Ultramarines, the Sons of Guilliman. Whilst we draw breath, we stand. Whilst we stand, we fight. Whilst we fight, we prevail. Nothing shall stay our wrath.

+++ Marneus Calgar, Chapter Master of the Ultramarines+++ Warhammer 40k Rule Book 5th Edition

FOR THE EMPEROR!

What Wizards of the Coast is Doing Wrong with Their "Encounters" Program

Yesterday was a great day for this blog.  I posted about my frustration that Wizards of the Coast is using KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS as the basis for their next Encounters Program adventure.  I ended up getting more visitors than usual and received some good comments.

Slight correction before the main piece -- I would like to note that while the "KEEP" is barred from me a KEEP isn't, the Chaos Scar (thematically an updated Caves of Chaos) aren't and they are a part of the new DDI Adventure Path. Wizards is giving me half of what I would like to see.

I thought I would take today to expand on my thought regarding what Wizards of the Coast is doing wrong in the coordination of the program, respond to some of the comments I received yesterday, and to offer some thoughts for improvement.  I am a firm believer that any critic of a given program should have something positive to offer.  Otherwise, you are just complaining and not contributing.  Consumers have an obligation to participate actively in the marketing and sales decisions of the companies they support.  They cannot just say, "I don't like this."  Consumers also need to say, "this is what I want."  Companies then have an obligation to respond to their customers needs and desires.

This is especially true when dealing with customer intimacy and marketing endeavors of a corporation.  The RPGA, and the Encounters Program, are both marketing vehicles for Wizards and examples of an attempt at a customer intimacy approach to their market activities.

Let me dispel an impression I may have made yesterday.  I am not an opponent of the Encounters program.  As I wrote yesterday, "I think that Encounter D&D Play events are good for gaming in general and good for local retailers."

I stand by that statement.  Organized play is a great idea, and Encounters is one of the best approaches to organized play in existence.   It is far superior to the Living Campaigns of the past -- which actually suffer from my "if you don't play, you can never get the adventure" problem worse than Encounters.  They also suffered from the, "there were adventures in the Scarlet Brotherhood?  Really?  Hmmm... Never heard about those" syndrome.

Here are the main Strengths of the Encounters program as I see it:

1) High quality encounter based adventures.
2) Graphically appealing components.
3) Ability to be played in a short period of time.
4) They occur on Wednesdays which is "New Comics Day." This maximizes the ability of the game/comic store to introduce comic buyers to the gaming hobby.
5) They are easy to run.
6) They are effectively used to market the latest Wizards products.

The program has quite a few Strengths and those need to be noted. The program also has Weaknesses, some Opportunities for improvement, and some Threats from other programs.

Before I get into those, I thought that I would address some of the good comments I received yesterday.

Anonymous (2) wrote, "their main purpose IS to get you into the shops to play, since obviously you are attracted to play it. I know we can be busy, but it is either go to shop or not KOTB at all."

This misses the point of my complaint entirely, and is also wrong. Wizards of the Coast's main purpose is to get me to go into shops to purchase their products and to have products to sell to me. That's how you make a profit. You make products for consumption and consumers purchase them. That's the way you typically maximize shareholder value, in both the short and long term. You also happen to maximize stakeholder value if in offering products, you listen to your consumers to see what they want -- and then provide it. If there are enough shareholders who want KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS, but cannot make it to stores every Wednesday for months in order to "experience" it, then Wizards is losing value by not eventually offering it for sale. Notice the "eventually" there. That is key. I think stores deserve exclusivity for a time, but that the company benefits by eventually making it available. Wizards makes no money on people selling stuff on eBay after the fact.

Acrobatic Flea, a significant blogger and fellow Villains and Vigilantes fan, wrote "Are we 100% sure the 'Encounters' adventures will never be available to the general public. I'm sure I heard a mumbling on a Gen Con podcast that they might be at some stage -- but I could be misremembering."

I hope Flea is right, though I think that Wizards should do more than "mumble in a Gen Con" podcast if selling them is their intent. They need to do more than "casual" viral marketing, they need to make a clear statement. Something like, "Encounters adventures will be available 6 months after the cycle is complete."

MJ Harnish points out that "crowded, noisy, and often unpleasant smelling game stores" may not be the best place to promote a play at home game.

To a certain extent, I agree. I would never want to game at THE LAST GRENADIER (though it has a wonderful selection of games and I shop there) or The War House (where I picked up a copy of Supergame 1st edition for cover price), but I would game at Emerald Knight Comics and Games, Game Empire, or Aero Hobbies (one of the places Eric John Holmes used to game). Some game stores are frightening, others are welcoming. It all depends on how the store is structured.

Anonynos and Callin make similar points about the value of using the game store, and both state that "sometimes you have to be a part of something to get a benefit from it" and "making the adventure exclusive gives it more value than if you could simply walk up and buy it."

I agree with these two regarding the value of having the games in the store, and regarding a "window" of exclusivity. Where is disagree is the following. I don't think making an adventure "exclusive" gives it more value. It gives it more secondary market value -- more eBay value. That isn't value for the shareholders or for the majority of stakeholders. Let's say someone participated in the full run of KEEP, and loved every minute. They want to share that experience with a gaming group that they put together based on the excitement that the Encounter created. They want to run KEEP for their friends. Guess what? They can't. They can't share the experience that brought them into the hobby. That is a HUGE problem and a marketing failure. Wizards makes no profit, and generates no good will, from something selling on eBay. This would be true if the adventure were "TEMPLE OF THE UNSEEN PURPLE HAZE" (which I now want to play), or KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS.

I don't think Wizards hates me, in fact I have good relations with a couple of their employees. I also have a gamer crush on Shelly Mazzanoble and hope that we can play "Barovia: The Real Ravenloft" rpg someday. Wizards is filled with hard working people I respect. I have defended them on repeated occasions.

What I do think they are telling me that they don't want my money, or to listen to my desires as a customer -- a desire to buy a product that they are already making. I'm not asking them to remake their products in the image of my whims, I am asking them to let me buy their stuff. That isn't a very "precious" position, that is a consumers position.

Now onto the Weaknesses of the Encounters program:

1) Game play is limited to Wednesdays.
2) Limited audience -- since game stores are primarily frequented by gamers, and comic books are a dying medium, the program isn't as far reaching as it could be.
3) Products are never made available to wider public as purchases.
4) Doesn't necessarily encourage the purchase of D&D products. Everything needed for players is provided at no cost. Overall, a good thing but does allow for some small number of free riders.
5) Coordination of program is still relatively weak and "cellular."

Opportunities:

1) Provide Encounters adventures to High School and College clubs. Possibly require some kind of proof of club status.
2) Expand Encounters program to libraries.
3) Allow those who have participated as players an opportunity to buy the last week's episode.
4) Allow the sale of the products to the general gaming public 6 months after the end of an Encounter season. This ensures that the products are "fresh" with recent releases.

Threats:

1) Other organized play. Paizo's Pathfinder Society allows the purchase of their Pathfinder Society adventures by the public. Purchases are limited to pdf, and don't include the excellent maps, tokens, and cards that Encounters contain, but still a threat.
2) Gamer resentment. The more that gamers feel left out, the more likely they are to go to other companies.
3) MMORPGS -- as always.
4) Eurogaming nights at FLGS's -- these are both a threat and a bonus. Wizards recent release of D&D themed games will help balance this threat, but opposing game days of any type are a threat.
5) Shrinking FLGS marketplace. The number of FLGS has declined significantly and Encounters is dependent on that market. Yes, it is helping to ensure the continuation of the FLGS market by promoting the FLGS, but this can only go so far. Possibly limit purchases of past Encounter seasons to stores who ran the season.

I'm sure that I could think up a lot more points under each category, including strengths. The program is a good one, but it is one that I think needs improvement if it doesn't want to make "home gamers" feel excluded from the larger community and if it doesn't contribute to the "D&D Narrative." The great thing about the old adventures was that everyone had played them. This gave gamers a shared experiences and helps to expand the community.

As I wrote yesterday, WotC how about you hook a supporter up?

Wizards of the Coast to Supportive Old School Home Gamers -- "Go to Hell!"

Those who read this blog know that I am usually a staunch defender of Wizards of the Coast. While others were complaining about Wizard's release of a 4th edition of D&D, I defended the idea. Since that time, I have become very excited about 4th edition and am in the process of putting together a campaign for my regular gaming group to play when we finish our current Eberron campaign.

I am eagerly awaiting the new Red Box, the Essentials product line (which is reaching out to "recession" gamers and new games), and even the controversial Gamma World. Many are concerned about the "collectible" nature of some the power cards in GW, but after seeing the Gamma World presentation at Gen Con I am excited at the prospect.

What I am not excited about is Wizards' next "Encounters" campaign -- KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS.

Let me rephrase that.

I am ecstatic about Wizards releasing a 4th edition version of KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS, but they have just told me to f@&# off by making it their next "Encounters" adventure.

I think that the Encounters "D&D Play" events are good for gaming in general, and good for local retailers. Having weekly single encounter adventures that are run at local game stores is wonderful and promotes the hobby. Never making those products available to the gaming community at large is an insult.

I'm sorry, but I don't have 2-4 hours on a Wednesday night to go to my local game store to play D&D -- let alone the afternoon. I am an MBA student, work full-time, and have two-and-a-half year old twin daughters. I game at home. My obligations at home, those lovely little girls who I adore more than anything, prevent me from gaming "away" from home.

I have been playing D&D for over 20 years and some of my fondest memories of D&D where when I was in high school. I didn't have a large gaming group yet and would spend my time running "solos" -- I would take multiple characters I rolled up through published adventures. The adventure I most frequently solo'd? KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS.

It is likely my favorite adventure of all time. I would love to buy a copy. But I can't, nor can I go to the store and play the "Encounters." What I will be able to do is read other gamers share their experience playing the adventure with deep envy.

By making this highly desirable product available to some gamers -- those who have spare time during the week -- and not to others, Wizards is flipping a big bird in my direction and I don't appreciate it.

If they ever make any of their Encounters adventures for sale to the general public, I will be overjoyed. I'm willing to give a 6-month exclusivity period to stores even, but until then I know that I and gamers like me are not high on Wizards list. It's too bad, since I have purchased one of every book they have published over the past decade -- sometimes more than one.

Yes...that includes all of the fiction as well.

Hook a supporter up please!