Andrew Pyzdek's blog

Schrodinger's Campaign

Although I'm not really a dungeon master, I do have thoughts on what I feel are appropriate ways to handle games.  One thing I have thought about is what I like to call, from the players point of view, Schrodinger's Campaign.  Essentially, you have no way of knowing, as a player, whether your campaign has been adjusted to your party.

Let's say, for example, that you are in a party with a tank with a high damage reduction, and a healer that can really pour on the HP.  You may into an enemy that hits hard enough that he nearly kills your tank, and the healer is at the edge of his seat trying to make things not go to hell.  After you pull through this fight, you would be quick to congratulate that pair saying, "We really wouldn't have been able to pull through that without you two.  He hit way too hard for any other party to survive."  But that begs the question, "Would the fight have been this hard with a different party?"

Alternatively, you may have a party that is poorly equipped to handle undead.  You have a favored soul instead of a cleric, you have little to no AoE, and your melee is crit-dependant.  But you run into a large group of them, and find them surprisingly easy to mow down.  You think to yourself, "How easy would this be if we had a sorcerer spamming fireball?"  This also begs the question, "Would the enemies be this weak if we did have said sorceror?"

From a DMs point of view, it's hard to strike a good balance.  You want the campaign to be varied, with many types of challenges.  However, the party will not really be able to handle some, and others will simply become trivial.  A good rule of thumb is to avoid things you know will be a TPK, adjust them to be dangerous, but have some solution for the given party.  Don't throw a no-chance-to-survive-if-you-don't-disable-it trap at a party with no one that actually can disable it.  However, do adjust it down to be a this-will-really-suck-if-you-don't-disable-it trap.  However, if the situation is not super likely to be a TPK, leave it be.  Don't up difficulties on challenges that play to their strengths, or dumb down things that play to their weaknesses.  Part of the fun IS hanging on by the skin of your teeth, but it's also sometimes fun to really kickass at the things you mean to kickass at.  Example, if you have a rogue that is insanely good at disabling traps, you should never adjust the traps so that he has a chance to fail that he otherwise wouldn't.  That ruins his fun, he probably built his character just so he would never have to worry about failing on a trap.  As my DM once said, "You shouldn't punish the players for being prepared."

Using Psychology for RP

Here's a quick question for the reader.  What do you look for in a friend?

If you said "That they share my beliefs and values," or something in that vein, I must call you out on it.  Although people often state that as one of the biggest determinants of a good friend, it actually doesn't hold in practice.  In fact, it doesn't even matter if the person is reliable, fun to be around, or attractive.  At the end of the day, the biggest determinant of what makes people friends is if they are around each other a lot.  Families tend to maintain a relationship because they share a house, and we tend to be closer to family we live near than family we are separated from.  I, personally, have very strong political and moral beliefs, but I don't necessarily share these with my close friends.  If I were to be drilled on it, I may even call their beliefs evil.

You may ask what this has to do with Roleplay.  However, it is very applicable.  I mean, why else would a evil-smiting paladin knowingly consort with a shady rogue?  The fact of the matter is, they are friends.  And being friends transcends morality.  Yet, how they became friends in the first place becomes the question.  We don't knowingly put ourselves in situations where we will be forced to act out of character, in real life.  Tough-guy sorts don't join ballet, because it doesn't fit their image.  Similarly, a lawful-good paladin is not just gonna start traveling with a chaotic-evil warlock, just because he could use some magic slinging.

Therefore, we need to find a compelling and logical reason for why such pairings come up (as they often do in DnD).  The answer, to me, comes from real life.  Such people must have been friends beforehand for such pairings to make sense.  Even if they were old friends, a preexisting relationship colors our perceptions of people so strongly that they can pretty much do no wrong, so long as they don't slight you personally.  That is to say, the paladin will go with warlock, until the warlock shoots him in the back.

As a result, I think that when you bring in characters that wouldn't normally mesh with a party, it is very important to include a tie of friendship so that it makes sense.

Sonic Skepticism Disorder (SSD)

I am currently suffering from Sonic Skepticism Disorder.  This causes me to be skeptical about the prospect of any Sonic the Hedgehog game that comes out.  I have developed this because of the disappointing streak of games that has come out recently.

The reason I have brought this up is simple.  Bioware is producing a Sonic the Hedgehog RPG.  This has me excited for a few reasons:

• Bioware is awesome with RPGs
• I love Sonic
• Mario RPG was awesome (Another platform character put in an RPG game)
• "Elite Beat Agents" was mentioned in relation to combat.  That sounds sick

On the other hand, I'm terrified because:

• Sonic does not have a very good track record with games that AREN'T 2-D platformers.
• The game features eleven playable characters.  I essentially hate all sonic characters whose names don't start with S and end with O-N-I-C.  I think the only exception is knuckles.  [Edit:  Knuckles also gets to me because he is constantly being tricked by Robotnik.  How many times is it gonna take you, Knuckles, to figure out that Dr. Eggman wants to steal the chaos emeralds?]

Personally, I'm very worried.  I want the game to be good.  But I'm extremely skeptical of the prospect.

Integrating Character Stories

I think this is a natural follow up to the post I made earlier today, because when you bring in a new character, it is often worthwhile to integrate their story with the preexisting party.  For example, if you wanted to bring in a new wizard character, they may be a member of the church that the cleric represents.  In fact, that very cleric served at the temple he went to.  Moreover, they knew eachother well, and were family friends!  Suddenly, the new wizard has a background that attaches him to the party, and someone there can vouch for him.  His story is also known to someone already.

Integrating stories is a cooperative process.  Both players need to talk about what interaction they had in the past, how well they remember eachother, and what tone their friendship had.  It would be very strange if one character were convinced that they were close and spent every waking moment with eachother and the other person said that they were acquaintances with relatively little interaction.  Also, the new character's story should match up with the established character's where they intersect (Unless, of course, the new character is used as a form of reveal.)  It would be very upsetting (or intriguing) if one character said they fought with the kingdom in a war, and the other said they fought against it.

Working with another player to build a shared story can be a fun and rewarding experience.  It adds an incredible amount of depth to their interaction, and may even guide how the characters interact with the world.  Here are a couple of quick hooks to start you off for relationships that lead to a strong integrated story.

Childhood Friends

This is a natural one, and is predisposed to characters joining an existing party.  We all have friends that we have lost contact with, but have an established past with that we could very quickly pick up with little or no question.

Former Role Model

For bringing in a considerably older or younger character.  It may be that the established member of the party used to look up to the newcomer, but his recent experiences have made him an equal of his former hero.  Conversely, the new character could have been working hard to be an adventurer, and finally is ready to follow his role model into the world.

Served Together

Many adventurers are former soldiers who found normal life too mundane.  Without the danger they were used to, they needed to go out and find some.  It's only natural that a few such soldiers would cross paths and join together.  Shared service can often make two people very close, especially if they were forced to spend weeks together marching across the wilderness, or holed up in a fort for months at a time.

Partners

This is suitable for characters that come into the party together.  These two characters have worked with eachother for as long as either can remember.  They may be partners in crime, or an adventuring/crime fighting pair.  Essentially, this is Bonnie/Clyde, Batman/Robin, or The Wonder Twins.  Chances are this pair will be side by side in the party formation, and their allegiance is to eachother before the team.  A good twist on this setup is that they are siblings.  No matter what, if you go with the long term partners setup, the two characters stories need to be pretty much parallel.  The dynamic created by such a strong pairing, however, is well worth the work.

When to Reroll, how to Reroll

Rerolling is simply starting a new character.  You first roll up your character when the game begins, and through circumstance or character death, you may be forced to reroll.  Sometimes you are left with a choice of whether to reroll, or keep your old character.  This generally happens when your character dies.  Here's a list of times when it is appropriate to reroll:

When to Reroll

You Aren't Enjoying the Character Anymore

Sometimes, you just need a change of pace as a player.  You may grow tired of the character from a roleplay or gameplay point of view.  In either case, it's better to change before you burnout, than keep going, and hurt your enjoyment in the long run.

It's Not Feasible to Get a Raise

Dying in the middle of a forest that's a million miles from civilization with no ready means to get home might just leave you out of luck.  Also, certain ways of dying are also more permanent than others.  If you really like your character, you may be able to work out something, but this may just be the end of your journey.

Your Party Killed You

If your party killed your character, they are extremely unlikely to raise you.  If it turns out that your character was the evil mastermind behind the plot, and the party pwned you like a n00b, then you are probably gonna stay dead until the DM raises you as a mighty lich NPC.

The Party Seriously Lacks Something

Every once in a while, you need to take one for the team.  If your party keeps getting killed by traps, you may need a rogue.  If you keep wishing for certain spells, you may need an appropriate caster.  If you are in a forest 90% of the time, and lost 100% of the time you are there, a ranger may be worthwhile.  Rerolling as an appropriate character, assuming there isn't a huge hole opening where you were, is a great way to make yourself useful.  It's very satisfying to be the solution to a problem.

Roleplay Concerns

Sometimes the story sees a character out.  Maybe he had a falling out with the party.  Maybe the mission that he originally set out to complete is complete.  Now is the time when all the loose ends tie up so nicely that you just have to go for it.  Admittedly, this rarely happens.  And if it does, that usually means that the whole adventure is over and we get the happily ever after ending.  In which case, rerolling is a given.

How to Reroll

1.  Remove Your Character Gracefully

Come up with a good reason for your character to be gone.  If he's dead with no possible raise, there ya go, all set.  If he's dead, but you don't want the raise, come up with a reason for him to stay dead.  Maybe he died the way he wanted to die, or he did everything he wanted in life.  Perhaps, he just had a rough life, and is done with it.  If he's still alive, an early retirement or a decision to leave the adventuring life to others can work.  One of my characters was emotionally scarred by a party death, and left the party because she suddenly became aware of her own mortality.

2.  Roll the New Character

Keeping in mind the setting of the game, you may need to tailor the character to fit the specific setting.  However, most DMs will find a probable reason for you to be where the party is.  Thus, coming up with your new character is just like coming up with your first character.  Keep in mind that when you come in at a high level, some background on earlier adventures really helps to set the mood for who you are.

3.  Join the Party

At some point, you have to join the party, and start adventuring with them.  Be sure to introduce your new character, and make it clear what your character's skills and purpose are.  Bringing in this new character is the perfect time to recap the adventure thus far, and explore the new possibilities of the new configuration.

Stats and Roleplaying Revisited

    I don't think that I did a good job of representing my opinion in the Stats vs Roleplaying post I did a while back.  Now, I happen to be of the school of writing that says that if you were not understood, it's your fault that you did not convey your message properly.  As such, I want to use an example to show that certain gameplay/roleplay systems will help to let players roleplay characters that are different from them in terms of personal ability, while others don't facilitate it as well.
    The example I will use is of a person with average social skills playing a character with a high diplomacy check.  The specific situation is that the character wants to get an NPC to help the party.  So, this is between the DM and the player.  I will give six different systems, describe them, then give pros and cons to each.
The six systems I will describe are...

1. Conversation > Result
2. Conversation > Roll > Result
3. Conversation > Apply Bonuses > Roll > Result
4. Roll > Result  > Description of Conversation
5. Roll > Conversation > Result
6. Roll > Hint > Conversation > Result

1. Conversation > Result

    In this method, the player and the dungeon master have an in-character conversation.  Based purely on this conversation, the dungeon master decides if the NPC will agree to help or not.
Pros

• The player has complete control over what his character thinks and says.
• The result is perfectly congruous with the roleplay.
• Relatively quick, no checking stats or figuring out target numbers.
• Roleplaying takes place

Cons

• Skill points put into diplomacy are wasted.
• Character is only as charismatic as his player.
• Relevant information is not accessible to the player that would be to the character.
• You may not be able to roleplay a smooth talking character if you can't think of the right thing to say.

    As a result, any character can be a smooth-talker as long as the player behind them is, or they get good counsel from their fellow players.

2. Conversation > Roll > Result

    Much like the last method, this involves a conversation between the player and the dungeon master.  This time, however, the actual result of this conversation is the result of a roll.  For an example of how this might work out, let me illustrate.
Player:“Hello sir, we've been stranded on this island.”
DM:“Oh really?”
Player:“Yes, we were in a shipwreck not but a few days ago.  Could you help us find our way to town?”
*ROLL*
10 or higher: “Certainly, I was heading out to the forest, but it's nothing that can't wait.”
5-10: “Well, I have some business to attend to.  I'm a hunter, you see, so I can't head back until I have something to show for my work.  But if I happen across you on my way back, I'll be sure to lend a hand.”
5 or less:  “Look, I have my own problems to worry about.  I don't have time to help every sorry sap I come across in the forest.”
Pros

• The player has complete control over what his character thinks and says.
• A player can have the results of a suave character.
• Skill and stat points matter.
• Roleplaying takes place.

Cons

• The result may be incongruous with the roleplay.
• Relevant information that would be accessible to the character is not available to the player.
• The suaveness of the character may only show in the result, not the roleplay itself.

    Between this method and the last, there is a tradeoff between believability in the reactions to the character and the value of skill points.  In this particular example, the result from rolling a low number doesn't seem appropriate for what the conversation held up to that point.  It may just as easily go the other way, where the conversation would clearly be offensive, but ends up with a positive result.
    This method is often applied when the character has no clear objective in mind for the conversation he has started.  When an opportunity to make a diplomacy check is found, this is applied retroactively.

3.  Conversation > Apply Bonuses > Roll > Result

    This falls somewhere between the two methods above.  A bonus, say +2 or -2, will be given to the roll as a result of the conversation.  This is to push the result more towards the expectation from the conversation.
Pros

• The player has complete control over what his character thinks and says.
• A player can (generally) have the results of a suave character.
• Skill and stat points are not meaningless.
• Roleplaying takes place.
• The result is likely to be congruous with the roleplay.

Cons

• The result may still be incongruous with the roleplay.
• Relevant information is not accessible to the player.
• A player may be able to emulate a character with a high diplomacy score through skilled conversation.
• The dungeon master has to decide what constitutes a bonus.
• May hurt a players feelings to tell him that he doesn't get a bonus, or even gets a penalty for what he chose to say.
• Makes it more difficult, to play a suave character than method 2.

    This is just a compromise between methods one and two.  I don't believe that it really answers the problems of either.

4. Roll > Result  > Description of Conversation

    Here, no conversation takes place.  Instead, a diplomacy roll is made, if a target number is hit, then the check is a success.  Then, the Dungeon Master recounts the conversation to the players, by describing what each person says.  Here's an example of how such an exchange might go.
Dungeon Master: “Do you want to talk to him?”
Player: “Yes.”
DM: “Roll for it.”
Play: *Roll* “15.”
DM: “That's a success.  You tell the man that you came from Sasserine, and he agrees to help you out, free of charge, because he's from Sasserine too!”
Pros

• Result is perfectly congruous with the roll.
• Skill and Stat points have meaning.
• Any player can play a suave character easily.
• Very quick.
• The explanation is tailored to fit the result.
• Character has access to all the information that the DM does.

Cons

• No roleplaying takes place.
• Character is not under the player's control.
• Character may say things that are out of character for them as a result of the Dungeon Master putting words in their mouth.
• Very mechanical.

    The sheer speed of this method gives it a lot of use.  For determining if you get discounts at shops, and other unimportant things, this saves time and energy.  More importantly, anyone can play the sort of character they want.  Just like how a barbarian is told on his roll if he hit or miss, the James Bond is told whether or wowed the other person or not.

5. Roll > Result > Conversation

    In this method, the roll comes first, as before, but the conversation is filled in between the DM and the player.  Essentially, the DM tells the player whether they passed or failed, and then the player should fill in what they would say if they made it or not.  All-in-all, this method can get very awkward.  I won't even go into the pros and cons of it, because it is simply so hard to roleplay properly.

6. Roll (secret) > Hint > Conversation > Result

    A modification to method five that makes it usable.  Here, the roll determines a pass or fail, but the DM keeps this knowledge secret.  They then give a hint to the player, which the player then uses to sculpt their conversation.  The result is then revealed, which should fit well with the conversation as it was given.  Here is an example to illustrate, because it may be hard to picture.
DM:  *Makes a secret roll, determines success, and gives an appropriate hint*
(10+: “Mention you're from Sasserine.” 5-10: “Ask where he's from.” 5 or lower: “Ask if he's a native here.”)
DM: *Gives hint to player*
Player:  “Lucky to come across some else in this forest.  We're from Sasserine and got shipwrecked, do you think you could help us?”
DM: “Sasserine?  My home town was a port city no more than a day's sail from there.  We're practically neighbors!  Of course I'll help you out.”
Alternatively
Player:  “Excuse me, you wouldn't happen to be a native of this island, would you?”
DM: “One of those hair brained monkeys?  Of course not!  Do I look like one to you?  Hardly.  Get out of my sight.”  (The NPC is a bigot, the player chose just the wrong thing to say to him.)
Pros

• The player has some degree of control over what his character says.
• The results fit the roleplay, if the hint is good.
• A player can play a suave character easily.
• Roleplaying takes place.
• The player gets some degree of insight on the conversation.
• Conversations are more dynamic as a result.
• Stats and Skill points have value.
• The character can be roleplayed charismatically.
• The character stays in character, as long as the hint is appropriate.

Cons

• Slow.
• Requires the Dungeon Master to form appropriate hints for the situation and character.
• Puts words in the character's mouth, or thoughts in his head.
• Requires cooperation from the player for full effect.

    This method makes a serious tradeoff in time, and requires a certain amount of effort from the players to have its full effect.  If the player doesn't work with the hint, then the result of the conversation becomes incongruous.  Additionally, some players don't want thoughts put in their character's head.  Essentially, the hint is telling them what they will say, and then the player only gets to decides how they say it.  Still, when time permits, I think this is a superior method.

Conclusion

    Alright, time for me to wrap this up.  I hope that I have illustrated that certain methods allow us to better roleplay characters with abilities beyond our own.  Such methods would allow me to play a suave character, despite my own personality.  Additionally, the last method gives the player an important tool, insight.  With a little bit of insight, the conversations we have become much more defined.  In the example given, the character would have realized that the man looked like he was from around Sasserine, and a good way to relate with someone in a foreign land is to come from the same region.  That insight from a high diplomacy is reflected in the hint given, and leads to a believable conversation with fitting results.  Without the insight, the conversation is much more vanilla, as in the example in method 2.
    With a good system, we can all play just the sorts of characters we want in a fulfilling and fun way.

Get that Reality Distortion Field Crankin'

     Good ole Steve Jobs dropped the big one.  The iPhone is going to have an official Software Development Kit in early 2008.  We all know what this means, Steve has changed his mind on what direction he wants the iPhone to go.  As a result, it's time to get that spin machine working.
    Now, I just want to say right here that Jobs didn't make a mistake.  Jobs doesn't make mistakes.  Thinking that he makes mistakes is crimethink and will not be tolerated.  My basket has been filled with blogs detailing the iPhone not getting an SDK, I need to fix those, because starting in February, the iPhone has always had an SDK.
    All 1984 joking aside, this represents a big philosophical change for the product, and will take some explanation on Jobs part to know what is in store for the iPhone.  As it was released, the iPhone was meant to be a phone, a web browser, and an iPod.  Many people made it into a computing platform by building Applications for it, but those were broken by the last iPhone update.  Apple has been beating the drum that it's not a platform since they announced it, but I think they are finally giving into the pressure.  I think they are giving in because they need to keep their "Core" customers happy.  IE, people like me who influence others to buy Apple products.  Although we only represent a small market, the word of mouth we provide is important to a business that caters to the high end market.
    Unlike many people, however, I feel that the closed period was warranted.  As a new platform, I think it was probably released somewhat half baked.  From what I understand, the latest patch rewrote a lot of the framework in the core system files.  Many people claim that it was to break third party software, I think it was because it just wasn't done when they pushed it out the door.  Essentially they said "The hardware's done, the software works.  Ship it, we can push an update out when it's ready."  This, to me, is the real reason they restricted application building.  When you release that SDK you tell developers that they can rely on your platform to work in a certain way, that you will generally maintain.  Apple didn't want to agree to that because there were so many changes left to be made.
    Still, Apple didn't come out totally clean.  Even without their blessing, a lot of people built programs for the iPhone.  They ended up getting screwed when the whole system changed, and they claimed that Apple broke their programs on purpose.  Essentially, Apple told them, "We made you no promises," and moved on.
    Personally, I think this announcement means two great things.  First is that great apps are on their way for the iPhone that will really tap its potential, now that developers don't have to be so reserved about it as a platform.  Secondly, it means that the platform is almost complete enough that Apple can let others build on it.

Hard Subs vs Soft Subs

    I watch anime.  I watch a lot of anime.  I watch a lot of subtitled anime.  My favorite way to watch an anime is with a good set of hard-subbed subtitles underneath, and a Japanese language track.  There are many reasons I prefer subtitled.  First off, I like to watch new shows, which haven't been dubbed yet in English.  Secondly, I generally (though there are exceptions) prefer the Japanese voice actors to the English ones.  Moreover, I have enough knowledge of the Japanese language that I can catch a little bit of the subtlety in the original voice track, so I can fill in a little of what's lost in translation.
    Yet, there are two kinds of subtitles out there.  The first is called a hard sub.  A hard sub means that the text is overlayed on the video, then encoded into it.  When you download a hard subbed video you get the sub and video together.  You cannot turn off or change the subtitles, they are stuck there.  The second kind of subtitle is called a soft sub.  You may be familiar with this from a DVD.  You can turn the subtitles off and on at will, and certain programs will let you change the font, size, or position of the subs.
    The advantage of a soft sub should be obvious.  If you don't want the subtitles on the screen (so you can do a screen grab, or if you don't need them), turning the subtitles off is a simple way to do it.  Additionally, if you want to change the size/color to suit your tastes, then you can.
    The advantage to a hard sub is a bit more difficult to apprehend, but it comes down to freedom.  A good subbing group takes advantage of a hard sub's freedom by sticking subtitles on objects, using dynamic fonts/sizes/colors to good effect, and positioning subtitles to fit the situation.  For example, if a newspaper were shown on-screen, a softsub may place "Newspaper Headline: Godzilla Terrorizes Tokyo" at the bottom of the screen, while a hardsub could simply place the translation directly under the headline itself.  Alternatively, if two characters are speaking over eachother, a softsub may end up with overlapping text or a big block of text with nothing to indicate who said what.  A hardsub, on the other hand can use font colors to distinguish the speakers, and place the text in positions where the speaker is obvious.  Additionally, a softsub doesn't care if all the action is going on in the lower third of the screen.  It may well cover all the action with poorly placed subtitles.  Hard subs are rarely so cavalier, and place subtitles out of the way when the lower-third is in use for another purpose.
    A lot of people, however, prefer soft subs.  Many of the shows that I like, are only carried in that format.  It's a lot less intensive to write, as good translation and proper timing are the only concerns.  Moreover, the quality of the translation is often more of an issue than the style of the subtitle.  Admittedly, my views may well be colored by the fact that my video player of choice happens to suck at displaying subtitles.

Do Stats get in the Way of Roleplaying?

Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment.  Are any of us geniuses?  We may consider ourselves smarter than average, which is itself a suspect claim.  However, to say that anyone reading this is a genius on the level of Einstein or Newton is highly suspect.

Yet, when we play Dungeons and Dragons, we often play as characters that are geniuses, wisemen, and masters of crowds.  It is not uncommon to see a character with an 18 in a given mental stat, and going higher with the assistance of level increases and buffs is pretty much a given.  However, roleplaying a character that is full-fledged genius is a bit much for a normal person.  You may, for example, look at a puzzle and be confused while a genius would immediately see the solution.  To keep the puzzles from all being trivial, of course, your Dungeon Master won't give you hints.  However, there is a question of believability when your character looks at something relatively simple and just scratches his head saying "huh."

Additionally, characters with high charisma should say things that charm those they meet.  Not all players, though, have such fine tuned social senses, and end up saying things that would obviously offend.  Applying bonuses and penalties based on what the player says can quickly obsolete the built in social gameplay system, but when the player says something (right or wrong) that doesn't mesh with the response, believability takes a hit.

As a matter of course, I think DMs should give hints to character based on their stats.  If the group is having problems with a specific problem, the character with the highest appropriate stat should get a hint.  When you first meet someone, the character with the highest charisma should get a hint as to what that person wants to hear while someone with a high wisdom gets a hint as to what that person is all about.  Playing a character who is 9 feet tall and can swing an axe is as viable of a fantasy as being a debonair smooth-talker.  At the same time, roleplaying is a powerful storytelling tool, and falls to the wayside if every conversation is replaced with a roll.

They interact with eachother.  Badly, if not handled properly.

On Spellbooks

A wizard's spellbook is one of his most prized possessions.  Without it, he can't prepare his spells for the next day.  It's also worth a lot in gold, around 5000 G for a full book on the open market.  Taking good care of your spellbook, and getting a good spellbook, are key to playing a good wizard.  Moreover, keeping the pages of that spellbook full will give you more leeway when preparing your spells for the day.

Boccob's Blessed Book

Just need to mention this little gem.  For 12000 Gold (6000 crafted yourself), you can get the book known as "Boccob's Blessed Book."  This dandy little book has 1000 pages, 10 times that of a normal book, and let's you write spells in it for free.  I should point out that it is only free of material costs, but even if you pay the standard cost, it still saves you 66% on every spell you put in.  If we assume that you craft the spellbook yourself, copy all the spells from your old book, and sell that, you are getting the book at a net cost of 1000 G.  With the newfound space, and low cost, you may find yourself scribbling more spells in than ever before.
You should take care of keeping it safe.  First, get it a nice slip cover (20 G), to protect it from the elements.  Get it trapped with a persistent alarm spell, so you'll know if someone is trying to steal it.  Considering all the permutations of alarm, it shouldn't be hard to find just the right alarm spell to hook on your spell book.  Let's assume this costs 1000 G to set up.
Now you need to make use of all of your contacts.  Get in touch with your former masters, any apprentices you lost track of, and head back to the old magic academy.  Start copying spells left and right.  You've got 1000 pages to fill, where a spell takes as many pages as its spell level.  Each spell takes 24 hours, so this will be several months of work and research, but you're a wizard, so it comes with the territory.  Making use of your contacts will lower the fee charged to copy the spell (Traditionally 50 X Spell Level is the cost, you may be able to get that down to half or lower.)
The reward from all this work is a book you can be proud of, and that will serve you well.  Incidentally, the full book is worth 50000-100000G, maybe even higher if you got some unique or rare spells in there.  That's why it's so important to protect your book from thieves.  Once you have all your spells, don't forget about karma.  Let people copy spells from your book.  Charge as necesary, but remember to give back to the people that helped you fill it up in the first place.