Adventure Site Contest II

My apologies for neglecting to mention this, but Ben Gibson is currently running the second installment of the Adventure Site Contest (ASCII).  Deadline for submissions is January 1st, so if you're sitting around watching NFL games this morning (as I am), that's something you can work on during the commercial breaks...at a maximum of 3 pages, these short-form adventures are ideal for seeding throughout your campaign world.

Little something-somethings for "off the beaten path."

I will NOT be competing this year, but as one of the judges, I will be reading...and reviewing...all the entries. If you've long cherished any interest in hearing me lambast your design chops for poor treasure counts, this is your chance! Hahaha!

All right, that's all for the day. The daughter and I are going to the Seahawks-Bills game this afternoon. She'll be wearing her Josh Allen jersey (*sigh*) not because she's a Buffalo fan, but because she finds "Joshy" to be tasty eye-candy (*double sigh*).  Ah, well...it is what it is, and professional sports are supposed to be entertainment; everyone's entitled to a favorite player.

[some of MY all-time favorites? Emmitt Smith and Mike Alstott. Never owned a 'Boys or 'Bucs jersey, though...]

Have a good week, folks!

: )

"Storygamers"

Oh, boy. A loooong one for a Friday.

"Storygamer" is a term that gets bandied about the internet a lot these days, generally in a pejorative fashion. I seem to see it a lot amongst those folks identifying themselves as "CAG (classic adventure gaming) gamers," generally setting themselves up in opposition to this particular type, or style, of player.

First allow me to reiterate (or explain) that this label of "adventure gaming" is simply meant to distinguish what I do from what is usually considered "role-playing" these days (i.e. in the 2020s). Up until the 2010s, I certainly would have called myself a "role-player," and these games I play "role-playing games" or RPGs. When it comes to running AD&D, I take the same approach I have (pretty much) always taken...generally speaking, the same approach I've taken towards ALL role-playing games I've run over the years.

That being said:

1) it is remarkably difficult to run most RPGs in the style of AD&D (and as evidence, I will point to the consistent LACK of my ability run other RPGs over the long-term; most non-D&D games...with some exceptions...have been extremely short-lived affairs).

2) the AD&D I run these days is a much more mature, calculated, and conscientious than the AD&D of my youth. Credit this with having grown as Dungeon Master, and the years of work I've done on self-analysis and self-development.

But just because I distinguish myself as an "adventure gamer" does not mean I consider myself part of a particular tribe. I'm less interested in being a part of any particular community, and more interested in the game itself...what it can do for me, what I can do for it.

[it is similar to my feelings of the "OSR" back in the day; as I've written before, I never saw myself as part of a "movement," so much as an old geezer that wanted to play old games]

So, while I'm happy to die on this hill of championing 1E play, I'm far less interested in digging a trench around said hill, and spiking it pickets to keep out the "storygamers." ESPECIALLY because I feel that, these days, we may be using too broad a definition of just what a "storygamer" IS.

Here's a good blog post defining story games from Ben Robbins (of Ars Ludi). It's from October 2012, but holds up today, echoing many of my own thoughts (from 2013 and now). Here's a solid quote:

"A story game is a role-playing game where the participants focus on making a story together instead of just playing “their guy.” The alternative–which I played 100% of the time for more than two decades–would be adventure games like D&D, where your character is your turf.

"Yep, I said adventure games. I’ve used the term “traditional games” a lot but in hindsight it’s a terrible term for the games we’ve loved for decades. Back in the 70s and 80s these same “traditional” games were frickin’ radical. I think “adventure game” is a better term. In an adventure game it’s the job of the players to beat the adventure the GM presents. Again, not my invention: “adventure game” was a common term for D&D etc. back in the day."

Yep. I'm not the first one to call my kind of gaming (i.e. Dungeons & Dragons gaming), "adventure gaming." And neither was Ben, as he readily admits. But I digress; we were talking about "story gaming;" and here ya' go:

"In adventure games your job is to play your character and make good decisions for them. If you mess up (or roll badly) your character can die and be removed from the game. In a story game any character you play is a facet of the shared story. You may even sabotage your own character or spin them into tragedy because it makes the story more interesting. It’s a shift from “what would my character try to do” to “what do I want to have happen to my character” and in the story at large."

Or, to put it another way:

"In an adventure role-playing game you can only accomplish something because your character can do it. In a story role-playing game you can make something happen because as a player you want it, not just because your character can make it happen. In an adventure game like D&D you decide what your character does, but your ability to succeed is a reflection of your character’s traits...

"In a story game...the character isn’t the limit of your power in the game. The rules give the players authority over things that are outside their characters’ control..."

Got that? A story gamer is playing a different kind of game (a "story game") with mechanical differences that support that type of play. Lots of examples abound, many of which came out of the Indie RPG (Forge) think tank. But what about all those folks who play D&D with funny voices? Check this out:

"Take D&D, old school D&D even. The players control their characters and the GM controls everything else. The characters’ chance of success is based on their character’s fictional abilities (good fighters win fights, poor fighters lose fights, etc.). But the GM could say to a player “Hey, tell me about the monastery your character came from.” Suddenly the player has some story game-style input into the fiction: their character didn’t create the monastery they were trained in, that’s the player making up things they want in the game. Or the GM could ask the group whether they want the next adventure to be more wilderness or dungeon crawling or political intrigue. Again, now the players are making contributions outside their characters. 

"Those examples are not that uncommon in adventure games. So hey, that makes them story games, right? 

"Not really. The important difference is that those contributions are arbitrary and non-binding. The GM is deciding when to ask the players for world input (if ever) and if the GM doesn’t like what they propose she can decide not to use it. The GM holds the veto. In an adventure games rules system, story game-style participation is an ad hoc privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time or never extended at all. It’s not a system.

"On the other hand, if you’re a player in an adventure game and you can always decide to make “bad but interesting” decisions for your character but the penalties can be pretty brutal. Yep, it was awesome and dramatically moving to have your paladin take off his armor before the big battle to show his unshakeable faith in his god’s prophecy, but in game terms it meant you had a terrible AC and got cut down in a few rounds. Oops. Now sit and wait while everyone else finishes the fight. The adventure game doesn’t have a method to reward your decision because that’s not what it’s built to do. It doesn’t expect you to play that way."

I am quoting heavily from Robbins's blog post because he echoes my understanding and feeling on the matter. What he is calling "story games" I (as a Forum alum) would probably call "story now" games...games designed to tell a story and unconcerned with aspects of exploration of challenge. They're nice parlor games, but not anything designed for long-term play (i.e. play of more than a handful of sessions). And they're not bad! At least they have an objective of play (tell a nice story) and mechanics to support that.

But Ben was writing in 2013. In 2014 we see the advent of 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons...and shit starts to hit the fan. Because the publishers of 5E (i.e. Hasbro/WotC) had absolutely zero concern whether or not their game is coherent, instructional, functional, etc. nor even if consumers have any idea/consistent standard of how the game is meant to be played. Instead, their sole concern, was reestablishing market dominance, i.e. reclaiming the market share they'd lost to Paizo/Pathfinder after the debacle that was 4th edition. They did not Give A Shit how or why people played D&D, just so long as people were playing D&D...and they were going to do their damnedest to make sure THAT would be the game RPG folks were playing. Everything to Everybody.

SO...the  "brutal" consequence of trying to do "story" while playing an adventure game? All that had to go out the window. Characters have to be EXTREMELY hard to kill (if not impossible). Players have to "give consent" for negative consequences to affect their character. Creating character backgrounds and establishing stories for PCs became part of the actual chargen process. "Balanced" character archetypes ensure that no matter what a player's particular preference of "flavor," the characters will be on equal footing. Screw asymmetry. Thus the ascendance of My Guy/Gal syndrome and let's-tell-our-precious-little-stories-about-ourselves.

*sigh*

After my last post about the Euro OSR, I had a private conversation with an individual who discussed some of the issues they've had with their players, despite running a 1E game:

"...my players do not want to be motivated by gold, they find the notion of upkeep and training costs silly from an in-game perspective. 

"We ran indeed into a conflict...I wrote in a short reflection on the state of the campaign and their player skill that "saving the NPC is essentially a pretense for adventurous play - as adventurers, you want to loot treasure as much as possible while on the mission" and they were offended. ...They do not play to level up (and perhaps to a small extent even are used that the GM just awards level up after 'successfully' finishing an adventure without the tracking of XP)...

And:

"To a large extent my players are able to formulate their own objectives of play, especially during a long term campaign (i.e. unfinished business, taking revenge etc.), although in practice I seed the world with adventure locales...

"They pick perhaps also to some extent in line with their character motivations, or - at the same time - what they as players find interesting and then retroactively, if at all needed, formulate a motivation for their character. Especially this 'thinking meta as a player and bending my PCs' motivation to what I want' is very foreign to players invested in their characters..."

This, in my estimation, is NOT "storygaming." There is a disconnect between the players and the DM, but it isn't a bridge too far to span. In fact, it would seem to require only a step sideways by the DM to make things work: these players are still interested in "adventure" gaming, they just need some facilitation.

Among many (most?) D&D players who look down on old style play, there is a perception that killing and looting is too simplistic, too coarse, too dumb an activity to engage in. "Kill monster, loot treasure, repeat, how boring!" Most of these players...at least the ones that haven't jumped on the YouTube train of playing D&D like Improv Night at TheaterSports...still want adventure, but they want meaningful adventure, if not grandiose. Just like a fantasy story they've enjoyed reading (or watching on a screen). Collecting gold, doesn't seem "meaningful"...it seems mundane. And they want to be transported...the "fantasy" of fantasy adventure gaming is, essentially, an escape from the mundane hum-drum of the normal world.

But when we look at the classic adventures that everyone still adores...Hommlet, Against the Giants, etc...we'll see that none of them are bereft of story. Good adventures are scenarios: they have a premise, an idea or concept that gives them meaning. There's a reason players are there. 

And the characters' "story?" They build that through actual play, the longer they survive. It is inevitable in campaign play: the PCs will build friends and enemies, allies and rivals. They will have ambitions and victories and setbacks and comedy and tragedy...the longer they play. 

DMs want our players to live in the world we're building. We want them to want to spend time there. And most players who want to play D&D (and, yes, I'd even include modern 5E players) want a fantasy world worth living in. It's the DMs job to create that world.

When we sit down to play D&D, we all need to agree with the core concept of the game: players are adventurers in a fantasy world. "Adventurers" are individuals with a certain skill set that use those skills (and their wit) to risk danger as their occupation. That's their job. They are not town guards, or bakers, or kings-in-waiting, or court jesters. They are adventurers.

And because they are adventurers, we "keep score" (in this game we've agreed to play) by measuring how successful they are at their job (i.e. how much money they make), with some bonuses (x.p.) earned for defeating opponents with violence...because violence is inherent to the adventuring profession. They risk danger with their skill sets, i.e. sword and spell. Again: this is the game we've all agreed to sit down and play.

That doesn't mean the players can't choose to buck the premise. One of the great joys of D&D is that players have agency to operate outside the strict parameters set by (for example) a video game or a Fighting Fantasy novel. They are here to live in this world...not follow a script (and if the players assume they're supposed to follow a script, it's the DM's responsibility to disabuse them of this notice up front ASAP! That's not the game!).  

And living in a world requires some means of supporting yourself. 

It is the DM's responsibility to run the world...and that means providing consequences both for action and for inaction.  Players...because they have agency...have their choice of how to deal with the dangers of the world and the costs of living there. The DM has to make sure that there ARE "dangers" and "costs" so that the players are properly motivated to engage with them. The players can choose not to seek out treasure...and they will eventually be out of cash to feed themselves or their horses, reduced to living like penniless vagabonds (and treated the same by the locals). They can choose not to stamp out the monstrous ogre tribe that's moved nearby...and they'll see the village where they're staying dwindle as people move away (or are eaten), shops close, beer barrels run dry, etc. 

It all comes down to the DM's world building.  The (1st Edition) game already has rules for handling most pertinent situations that arise during the game. But it's up to the DM to build the world in which those rules get used...and it's up to the DM to present the world in a way that engages the players.

The players have no interest in investigating the caravan raids that have been halting trade with the southern jungles? That will affect the local economy. The players aren't interested in the giants expanding their territory into civilized lands? Civilization will start to shrink. The players aren't enticed to break up a slaver ring that's preying on the innocent? More people will continue to disappear in the night. 

It is UNIMPORTANT that the players wish to create mannerisms for their character, or write up a backstory. That's FINE if they want to do that. Most 1st edition PCs already have a "backstory" of sorts: they have a race. They have a class. They have a name. You can already tell a lot about the character's pre-game "history" just from these things (and more if you want to use secondary skills). It doesn't make them a "storygamer" to want to do these things...nor even if they want to "self-sabotage" (like the paladin removing his armor before a fight). 

That doesn't make the player a "storygamer," because we are not playing a story game. We are playing an adventure game. If it means anything at all, it just means they're not a very good adventurer (certainly in the case of the dipshit paladin)...and that doesn't mean they can't get better!

As the Dungeon Master, YOU have all the power. You create the world; you run the campaign; you arbitrate the rules. Any issue or disconnect here really falls squarely upon the shoulders of the DM. At least it does for those of us running old edition D&D. Choosing to DM this older version of D&D means choosing to take up this mantle of responsibility.

Old edition D&D is not "collaborative" in the same way a story game is. Players looking for a collaborative game...one where they provide input that impacts the game in spite of the rules and the results of the dice...would be best served to look elsewhere. Because old edition D&D doesn't support that kind of game play. It never has. Yes, you can glom on rule additions (hand out "narrative change" points to players or whatever), but the more adaptations you make, the more bits you're likely to muck up (requiring more changes), the farther you get away from what works WELL about the D&D game, and the more you'd (probably) be better served by finding a game that already has the objective of "creating a story."

Or, you know, such players could simply write their own fiction...either solo or in collaboration with others. Just saying.

Those players who stick around are signing up to play an adventure game, regardless of whether or not they are giving their characters fictional "motivations." That's FINE if they want to do that. A motivation rooted in fiction ("The six-fingered man killed my father; one day I'll have revenge!") is nearly as good as a motivation rooted in game play ("I want to find a fireball spell...and get to a level where I can cast it!"). Motivations are good, because they incentivize action. Doesn't mean they're ever going to be fulfilled or come up in play (that magic-user might die before 5th level...). Them's the breaks.

As DMs we are not true "storytellers," because all stories have an ending to them, and our responsibility as a neutral arbiter to the game prevents us from having an attachment to ANY possible ending. We create adventures (scenarios) with which the players interact. These scenarios make sense in terms of the fantasy world we've created. Our world is run to the best of our ability with the help of the rules. It is a world of adventure: a world with monsters and treasure, dungeons and dragons. The better we build it, the more players will want to adventure within it, and the more adventures they will have. Until their characters die or retire. And it's only then, when a PC has ended, will we be able to say "Okay, hear's the story of Stoutheart the Grim..." Or whatever.

DMs are world builders; D&D players are adventurers. The interaction of these roles (builder and explorer) is the game. Not a "story game." An adventure game. And, if YOU (DM) are running an old version of D&D...like 1st edition AD&D...you have nothing to worry about when it comes to "storygamers." Storygamers will find story games to play in, and that will be a 'win' for everyone involved.

Build your world, run your world, love your world. Do that and all the other "noise" will cease to matter.

: )

The European OSR: Czech Mate

During the days leading up to this year's Cauldron convention, I spent not a little time reading and rereading various blog and forum posts from last year's post-Cauldron swoon. Why? Partially because I'm a glutton for punishment and I wanted to remember all the fun I would be missing with my choice to stay home. 

; )

But more than that, I think that there has been something of a shift in gaming vectors since the advent of Cauldron...a subtle change in this wind that we call "old school" gaming. Other factors (especially Prince's NAP contests and the Classic Adventure Gaming podcast) have certainly contributed, but Cauldron is an EVENT, not theoretical discussion; an event where people meet, and experience, and gain practical knowledge through actual play. This practical, tangible experience is something the con-goers can then take back to their own gaming circles, disseminating knowledge all over Europe.

Yes, Cauldron is an international convention. Located (centrally) in Germany, last year's Cauldron had representatives from eight different European nations (plus one American, *ahem*). This year, that number jumped to 14 (or more, depending on how you want to count folks from the UK). And keep this in mind: the knowledge base of D&D in Europe is far shallower than that of the United States.  The total amount of D&D gaming that Europe has been exposed to over the years...especially in countries whose native language isn't English...is quite limited considering the game's 50 year history. European gamers have simply not had the access to the game and its product, the vast majority of which have been published locally (i.e. on this side of the ocean) and in the vernacular of its American publishers.

Please note: I am not trying to disparage our friends across the pond: there are many great minds on that side of the Atlantic who have made it their mission to explore and understand the history and workings of the D&D game...people whose understanding equals or (perhaps) exceeds my own. But for the majority of Europeans, their exposure to the history of "American D&D" starts far more recently than our own. The 1990s is usually the decade I hear cited by geezers my age and, as has been chronicled elsewhere, radical changes to assumptions and expectations of play took place with the advent of 2nd edition AD&D (published in 1989).

At this point, I will use Euro gamer Michal as an illustrative example. Michal (or "Mike" as he introduced himself to me) identifies as Slovakian, and it is his posts on a Czech gaming forum that actually started me ruminating on this subject. 

I got to know Mike at last year's Cauldron con. He looks more like a professional athlete (well over 6' tall and built like a linebacker) than a gaming enthusiast, but enthusiast he is...not just for D&D, but war games as well (he is deep into the Advanced Squad Leader...). Tactically oriented, he has a cooperative, team-oriented approach, and brings focus and intelligence to the gaming table. He won the "Most Valuable Player" trophy at Cauldron 2023, voted on by both peers and DMs, and it was well-deserved. He played in two of my game sessions, and he saved the party's bacon on multiple occasions with his actions.

Mike is also quite a bit younger than myself (15 to 20ish years younger, I'd guess...he just had his first child this last year). He does play "old edition" D&D, and had no problems sitting down to my 1E games, although he found my approach somewhat...mm, "disconcerting" at first.

You see, Michal cut his teeth on 2E AD&D in the 1990s. The '90s! That means he has a quarter century of role-playing under his belt!  But 2E is not 1E. Here, I will quote from Michal's own "after action report," using the (somewhat adequate) magic of Google to translate from Czech:

"Jonathan distributed pre-generated characters...I somewhat impulsively took a 6th level human cleric Daniel...

"...I ask Jonathan, is Daniel a cleric of any specific deity? I say no, it can't be solved. Okay. And he doesn't play make believe either. Okay...?! I feel a little insecure and I want to show a little insideness on the outside. I pull out the DMG and the D30 Sandbox Companion, and with feigned self-awareness, I begin to generate Daniel's personality from the tables - that he is restless, has a sense of duty motivated by visions from childhood, that he is afraid of blood (but does not mind dirt in the heat of his faith), that he is arrogant and selfish -entitled, a morose pessimist and a coward at that, but virtuous and with pure faith. And he has a suspiciously extensive knowledge of gambling, even if he avoids it. (Additionally, Dexterity 15 and Charisma 16... coincidence?) In a burst of inspiration, I also came up with an undefined neutral good deity of Foghorn, i.e. "Hmiel Corner" (probably some deity of sailors, lighthouses and marsh guards). That's a pretty cool figure, isn't it? And do you think it mattered? Not even a bit!"

I love the honesty here. I remember this exchange: Mike was very interested in playing his character right as a character. What are my motivations? What is my religion like? How am I supposed to portray this individual? I may have been a bit terse (because time is an issue in a convention game, and I knew none of that stuff mattered), but I did explain that the focus of the adventure was on the action at hand, not any kind of character development. 

Michal gives a very detailed play report in his post, but I'm less interested in what happened in the adventure (a scenario I've run many times in the past), and more interested in his thoughts and feelings, during the session. Check out his comments (some four/five encounters into the adventure):

"At this point I began to appreciate several aspects of Jonathan's tinkering: 

• He framed our task very clearly and gave clear instructions. He also clearly listed his house rules, without justification or suggestions for compromise. At the same time, it appears confident and trustworthy - as if this system has been playing for years and knows what it is doing and what style of play it wants to achieve. It works, we accept his rules of the game and let ourselves be guided. 
• It has very brief and precise descriptions. No delay, no flowery styles, no attempt at literary realization. At the same time, the descriptions are consistently from the perspective of the characters - what we can recognize, as long as we see what we can classify (e.g. he did not name the opponents). 
• He has the game system in his little finger. Any action or intent is mechanically resolved within a few seconds, clearly limiting the characters' options - eg "you can move towards him, but you won't attack again this turn". At the same time, it isolates the players from the numerical mechanics, although it seems to me that if the player had better control of the mechanics (for example, how initiative or charge works), then this could affect tactical decision-making. Some nooks and crannies of the system are only revealed through the game. For example, I was surprised that if the character falls into the negative, after healing, he needs a week of recovery and thus is out of the expedition (and even an additional security risk). I'm beginning to feel at this point that there is very little judgment, ad hoc decision-making or "rulings" in the procedures. Instead, [the game] has its support in the rules for almost everything. It has its own game tools, a file with several pages of tables. It creates a sense of competence and impartiality. 
• He is focused and has no side notes. He doesn't push his personality to the fore, he doesn't try to stand in the spotlight. He doesn't deviate, he doesn't salt the announcements. He seems to be keeping his fingers crossed, but he is also fair. Perhaps it is precisely referring to the module that allows him to assume a bit of a teacher's position, that he helps us with these difficult exams (and he is not to blame for them, they are already in the module)…"

Reading the subtext here of what Mike feels is different about the way I run an adventure at table, one can start to get an idea of what kind of game he is more used to seeing/playing. Games without clear objectives. Games that focus on description, narrative, and story. Games with ad hoc rulings by DMs with looser grasps of the system they're using. Games where DMs want to "ham" for the benefit of the players or for their own aggrandizement. 

That's not how I run D&D.

"In this room, Jonathan shows that if the fight needs to be fought, we will fight it even with the full mechanical load. I had the feeling that even in a situation where there are only a few weak opponents left, I would itch to feel that the players are bored and that I am delaying, since there is nothing at stake. I would feel pressured to say "and you killed the rest". But Jonathan, as well as later Prince, have such respect for the rules that the situation must be resolved through them. That irritated me a bit. One possible explanation is that even fights with weak opponents have a wear and tear function. And when one of the players gets on their nerves and lobs a high-level [Area of Effect spell] to get rid of them, that spell may be missing later."

Indeed. We are not telling a story. There are game consequences to game actions. Fights can be ended short of annihilation (via surrender or retreat) when warranted. And, as Michal notes later:

"Initiative mechanics are very important in such plans. AD&D has such fast-paced fights that they rarely last longer than three rounds, and sequencing actions really matters—and AD&D's initiative mechanics, despite their complexity and wide interpretability, shine."

Yep.

"Another note about the personality of the cleric Daniel. Later I talked to Jonathan about roleplaying and he says that it doesn't matter at all. You play as you would in that situation. There is no mechanism that captures roleplaying, Jonathan also cut off the belief. He does not insist on direct speech, even he reserves in-character NPC playing only for situations when the player requests it (i.e. my Speak with Animals, Speak with Dead, or interrogation), even though he roleplays very competently. But he says he doesn't play AD&D for this - he plays it for the challenge. And I got the impression that even his home gaming is oriented towards modules and jumping straight into the action."

A slight quibble with his assumptions here: my home game is not nearly as compacted and intense as a tournament game. There are periods of downtime; there are stretches of "inaction" (or, rather, activities of less intensity than dungeon exploration and combat). Campaign play is different from one-off convention play. But even then, there is little emphasis on portraying a fictional character at the table. In fact, there is NO emphasis on doing so. The character is an avatar for the player. If the player wants to act like an ass, they're welcome to do so, but they will probably face consequences (from both NPCs and their fellow players) for their actions. Usually, this isn't a problem in my home game: I strive to create a level of hazard/risk that forces players to cooperate and get along. Usually that's enough to keep the game focused.

The responses and comments on the forum thread offer further insight and interest...if you happen to read Czech or have the time to Google Translate it. Those interested can find the full thread here, from November of 2023, mere days after ending last year's Cauldron convention.

Since that time, I've had the opportunity to interact with Michal via the CAG discord on multiple occasions, usually offering suggestions or advice with regard to running 1st edition AD&D. Despite the newborn, Michal has continued to game (not always easy!) and is, I believe, currently DMing his home group through the old Slaver series, modified for campaign play.  In June of 2024, nearly eight months after meeting, he sent me a message (in English) which read (in part):

"Hello Jonathan, I wanted to reach out and thank you for the thoughts you placed in my head and the experiences you have shown me at the Cauldron Con. I have noticed that my game has shifted to a much more engaging playstyle than it was, say, one year ago, and it was strongly influenced by you. Before my goal was to show the players a somewhat whimsical and bizarre sandbox world with peculiar characters and monsters (such as a medusa repairing a bridge using petrified passersbys, or a rakshasa collecting religious scriptures) and yet internally coherent, however allowing interaction with the world in numerous registers akin to the literary style of the picaresque (i.e. if the players would decide to run an inn, we would I guess focus on the inn - although there was an explicit social contract that the PCs are ne'er-do-wells motivated to explore dungeons), and with much less focus on combat and other types of challenge. Characterisation of NPCs and PCs had a place too. I have the feeling there was some similarity to how Gabor Lux runs his games, except in reality my players never properly, intently, pursued XP or treasure.

"Meeting you has opened my eyes to challenge-oriented play where the GM plays more adversarially and provides hard situations for the players - and there is now much less focus on characterisation or whimsical (non-player) characters. I construct open environments and scenarios which are hard and tactically complex, and which are placed in a simulated sandbox world with its own (economic, ecological, political, military) dynamics. There is a bit of classical wargaming heritage in there, both in the sense of the role of terrain, manoeuvre and deployment of combined forces on the micro level, as well as simulation of the wider macro context...It is in a way liberating, since it feels much more authentic and enriched by my wargaming hobby and knowledges and skills I acquired throughout my life and academic career...."

Kind words indeed!  Would that it were so easy to change hearts and minds as just sitting down at a gaming table and throwing imaginary snake men at players!

But I didn't attend Cauldron to change hearts and minds, nor even to change people from one edition of D&D to another. The fact is, the first Cauldron was advertised as a venue for 1st edition AD&D...and I wanted to play 1st edition AD&D! That's why I went there (though, I do love Germany...). What I found when I got there was a lot of people who didn't have all that much experience with 1E (because, again, 1E doesn't have the history in Europe that it does in the United States), and the games I ran were as much demos for a particular playstyle as they were a chance to stretch my DMing chops.

Michal, unlike myself, was able to attend Cauldron this year. He did not win the MVP trophy this time, nor was he on the docket to run/DM any of the sessions. But he did have an excellent time at what he calls "the most focused and best organized RPG convention" he's ever attended. And regarding the actual gaming at this year's Cauldron, he had the following, telling comments:

"I seem to have noticed a much sharper, agile and action-oriented atmosphere and approach in the sessions I attended as compared to the previous year. It seems to me that in 2023 many of us have just come to witness 'proper' playstyles and GMing approaches and were fairly shy. But we have been marked, we have taken something precious with us when leaving the Schloss Hohenroda. In the year between, the Classical Adventure Gaming approach has spread like a virus to many of our homes and gaming rooms, and this year we returned more experienced and emboldened. Seeing the same faces again, retelling old battle stories and delving once again into the unknown, risking life and limb, felt like coming home. Thanks to the organisers we are witnessing the rise of a new European gaming culture, with ties and friendships across the continent and beyond, with passionate heralds as well as a new generation of designers..."

There is a shift that is taking place among certain groups of D&D hobbyists. Michal is not the only person touched by the change. Last year's Cauldron offered 16 sessions of AD&D, four of which were offered by Yours Truly. This year's Cauldron saw 20 registered 1E sessions plus 7 registered OSRIC sessions (the 1E retro-clone). For roughly the same number of convention-goers. I find that both amazing and encouraging. What will 2025's Cauldron convention look like?

I hope to see it in person.

***EDIT & ADDENDUM***

After sharing this post with Michal, he had a few comments/corrections he asked me to add:

1. Any suggestion or inference that Mike was a "storygamer" (his word) prior to his first Cauldron attendance is false. While he has gone through several different gaming phases (2E trad, 3E tactical, Indie/weird), he has been strictly "OSR" since the mid-2010s, and even had his own OD&D retroclone in circulation. His games used gold for x.p. had numerous player deaths and ran a number of (presumably OSR) modules.
2. Michal disagrees with my "subtextual assumptions" regarding the style of play he was used to, and upon further review, I agree that I allowed my own bias to jump to the conclusion of "games without clear objectives." However, my intent was not to insult but to distinguish 1E's measurable goals from objectives that are arbitrary, hidden, or (DM) fiat-based...all things endemic to 2E (and now 5E) play. That being said, Michal was talking about my clear-cut, goal-oriented obbjectives, which are part of (my) convention play, and not indicative of (my) normal campaign play.
3. Michal states the Google translation is "terrible."
4. Mike also corrected my assumptions about his age...we are actually quite close in age (he just looks a lot better/younger than I do...all that hair!). He has been playing role-playing games for 32 years.

Having hopefully set the record straight (feel free to skewer me in the comments section, man!), I believe I have been inspired to post a (somewhat) related follow-up that is NOT "Euro OSR" specific. Stay tuned!

The European OSR

It's 8:12pm in Seattle, Thursday night. In Hohenroda, Germany, it's 5:12am on Friday. 

Yesterday (German time) was the first day of Cauldron 2024, the second unfolding of the "OSR" EuroCon...a celebration of "old edition" gaming, mainly AD&D (1E) with a little OD&D, Basic, and assorted wargaming (Chainmail, Braunstein...even Diplomacy) thrown in. Last year, I attended the first Cauldron. This year, I am home in Seattle.

Of my own choice. 

That's important to the next bit I want to write: I have the money ("gamer money," the pittance I earn from selling books) which would have paid for my airfare and con ticket. I chose to stay home with the family this year, and I'm glad I did: my son's last weekend of his final middle school season of soccer (with playoffs and championships on the line), my daughter's (two) soccer games (I'm coaching both), getting ready for Halloween (our family is into the costume thing), mi suegra is in town, plus Autumn is my favorite time of year in Seattle. I wanted the year off.

But Cauldron...I miss you.

The gaming, of course: always excellent to play D&D with adults, always excellent to play 1E with anyone. But MAINLY just the people...good people from so many countries and cultures, all joined together by their shared love for fantasy gaming, all on the same damn page. Breaking bread together. Tipping beers together. Rolling dice together. Being kind to each other.

Even for non-gamers out there (who might be reading this blog): I fervently hope and wish for you to have a similar experience in the hobby/passion of your choice. 

*sigh*

I chose this year not to be there. But I still wanted to be there, at least, in spirit. I wanted to take part...I wanted to contribute. D&D is what I do. It is my "claim to fame" (as much as I have any such claim)...and after last year's extraordinarily enjoyable event, I wanted to do something to add to the convention experience of those attending this year.

So I offered the con administrators a tournament module: something that could be run at the con, similar to the old tourney adventures of Gilded Age GenCons. A shared experience for the con-goers...a touchstone adventure that would provide a memorable reminiscence (hopefully a positive one) for those in attendance. 

Kindly, they accepted my offer with six DMs stepping up to run the thing. 

As I said, I want to be here, in Seattle, right now. I have a lot going on. And I have no regrets of my choice, no Fear Of Missing Out on the con. What I DO miss, mostly, is the people and the shared camaraderie. It is not often...or ever!...that I find myself surrounded by so many kindred spirits. I have attended conventions in the U.S. where I felt far more out of place. Strange as it sounds, as far as gaming cons go, I felt less a stranger in Germany than in my home country.

And so I provided Cauldron with an adventure. It is not the same thing as being there, even if it IS a piece of me...of my creative expression. But it is something...something to mark that I was thinking of the folks there. That I was considering them. That I was cheering for them to have good games, and solid D&D fun.

I'm weird like that.

The title of this post is "the European OSR." That's because I want to write a (short) series of posts about these European aficionados of old edition gaming. Why? Why not. Okay, perhaps more than that: there is a group of European gamers who are as sincere and passionate about these old games as any geezer American (like me), despite being 'late to the party.' Many were only introduced to D&D with latter day editions: 2E or 3E or (maybe) Mentzer's BECMI sans context...a problem in and of itself, regardless of translation issues. Somehow, this group has found their way over to my side of the game...some of them even making the commitment to 1E years before I got my own head screwed on correct and re-pledged my love to the King of Games. And I want to write about them; I just do.

This is just the first of those posts. I have European D&D on the mind (no wonder!), and I hope to yoke that inspiration. 

But right now, I'm heading for bed. I've a long day tomorrow, even if doesn't involve DMing games for Germans and Hungarians while quaffing tremendous amounts of bier und palinka.

; )

Later, Gators.

[11:21pm, Seattle time; 8:21am (Friday) German time; paused for dinner]

The Much Maligned Bard

[this is the second time I'm sitting down to write a draft on this subject; let's see if it gets posted]

When I was a kid, the bard was my favorite character class. 

As an adult, I really like fighters (of all stripes). But the bard might still be my favorite character class. Just for different reasons.

Having said that, when I say bard, I'm talking the Rules As Written, 1E (AD&D) bard. I accept no substitutes. In fact, in all other editions of the game, the bard is dead to me.

And I've tried...Lord knows I've tried...to like bards in the various editions. The OD&D version (first published in The Strategic Review). The 2nd edition version (play-tested that one, solo, when running Return to White Plume Mountain).  The 3rd edition version (played one of those, too...a half-elf). I've included my own B/X versions of the bard in two of my own books (my B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer). I even wrote up a version of the bard for use with Holmes Basic that I thought was pretty good, and I've suggested re-skinning the cleric as a bard, for folks who don't dig a religious angle in their games.

None of these suffice to make the class palatable.

And, no, it may NOT be the "adjusted" versions of the bard that are floating around the tables playing 1E. I've tried Huso's curated, bard specific spell list. I've played the illusionist-style and song-variant versions found in Dragon #56. Heck, I've posted rules for a single-class version of the bard, myself...that I've since discarded.

All unsatisfying.

Gygax's version of the bard...the version found in Appendix II of the PHB...is the only version I use, the only version I'm interested, the only version I enjoy playing or running. I first discovered that bard circa Spring of 1985...nearly 40 years ago. I've played at least half a dozen bards since then, and run (as a DM) at least half a dozen more. Hm. More (now that I think about it)...at least 7 or 8 over the years, although several of these never made it out of the "wannabe" stage of their careers.

I like the bard as written. I run it exactly as given in the PHB. I supplement ONLY with the clarifications and Q&A info provided in the Sage Advice column of Dragon #56, all of which I have found to be sound and perfectly reasonable. Aside from the lack of alignment restriction and training costs (universal changes for my home campaign), I deviate not a whit from the class as written.

I find it perfect.

As a kid, I liked the class because it was different and it seemed to offer a lot of power: thief abilities, bard abilities, spells, good fighting. The bard characters of my youth, which I have described often enough in prior posts, were powerful, and wondrously adaptable (as all multi-class characters tend to be)...but certainly not ALL powerful. High level fighters were far better at fighting. High level clerics and magic-users were far more powerful and versatile spell-casters. High level thieves could sneak better and backstab for more damage.  

My old bard...viewed with a bit of distance and maturity...was mainly "powerful" due to the possession of fairly good psionic abilities, something few bards (or few of ANY character!) can count on acquiring. Take away the psionics and you have a middling good character with a lot of abilities that requires good play to get the most out of it.

And that's what I like about the bard these days: the challenge of the character class. Leveling the character isn't difficult...well, no more difficult than leveling any fighter (fighters take a lot of x.p. to level compared to clerics, thieves, and...yes...magic-users). But once you've switched to the thief class, leveling goes fast (assuming the bard is traveling with a similarly experienced party): the character breezes through the thief levels AND the early levels of bard as well. For players who enjoy rapid advancement...and who are willing to be patient through the slog of the fighter class...the bard pays rich dividends down the road.

But the bard is no walk-in-the-park to play.  As a fighter, you must think like a fighter. As a thief, you must think like a thief. And as a bard, you must be on your toes with regard to which class abilities you use when...it's not an easy task to juggle but for the experienced gamer, that challenge is one to be tackled with relish.

The bard's high number of hit points, excellent Charisma, and automatic language learning ability makes the character an ideal leader and negotiator/spokesman for the party. Half-elf bards (with their initial language selection) are even more so, and players should become used to this style of play (i.e. not slaying everything they encounter on first sight) as early as possible (i.e. even during the fighter portion of their career). Even when pursuing fighter or thief class, it behooves the 1E bard player to think of themselves as a "bard-in-training." The biggest mistake I made as a youth was leaning to hard into the fighter aspect of the class...and then forming habits of acting like a fighter even after I had leveled into bard (and after fighter PCs were outstripping my fighter ability). My characters died a lot, in part because of my violent approach to the game...fortunately, AD&D has a variety of magic to help recover the stupidly dead character.

Some may quibble with the bard's druidic magic and whether or not is thematically appropriate or effective. Personally, I don't care. It functions. It helps describe and define just what a bard IS in terms of an AD&D campaign (their druidic nature/training). And it doesn't allow the character's spell-casting to upstage any of the other party spell-users...druid spells are powerful in the outdoors, but in the dungeon environment, they are probably the least effective of the casters. 

And, yet, a bard will never come close to the power level of a true druid with regard to spell-casting: a 10th level bard has a spell selection of 3/3/3/2 (not counting WIS bonuses), while a druid of the same x.p. total (some 250,000) has a selection of 5/5/3/3/2/1, exclusive of WIS...let's not sniff at the druid's ability to transmute rock to mud and conjure fire elementals!

Far from over-powered, the bard is a true jack-of-all trades: a little of this, a little of that. But with invaluable abilities to the adventuring party, not just with their communication forte, but with their legend lore ability: I find that to be the skill most often used by the bard. And, yet, because of their fighter training (and high hit points) they perform well in melee. And because of their thieving abilities and good saving throws they perform adequately in a "scout" capacity.  For the player who likes to keep busy, the bard can always find something useful to do.

Without upstaging the PCs with dedicated classes.

Not that I worry all that much about "upstaging;" redundancy is a desirable aspect of party building in AD&D, so that when a PC is low on hit points or spells (or dead) another party member can step up to the plate. This is why multi-class demi-humans are so useful, even at higher levels of play (i.e. when they start topping out). The bard is effectively another multi-class character...albeit with a more circuitous route...that has several unique powers and abilities. In 1E, the bard class works well and supplements most parties quite admirably.

Yeah. I love the bard. No, it's not an easy class to play, but it is a useful class to have in a party. It's not the tricksy, obnoxious, humorous thing that it's morphed into over the last 35 years. It provides redundancy AND muscle, subtlety AND spell-craft. Consider how rangers and paladins both (eventually) gain spells; the former at 150,000 x.p., the latter at 350,000 (!!). Now consider the 1E bard is pretty much the same with its delayed spell acquisition, earning its first spell somewhere between 38,000 and 140,000 x.p. Not bad at all.

I understand the philosophical objections some have to the "meta" of the class: how can a character suddenly go from fighter to thief (let alone from thief to bard) without spending several years on training. After all, even a thief is presumed to have had a lengthy apprenticeship, learning their trade, before setting off as an adventurer. My attitude is that the bard is likewise FULLY TRAINED in all its skills: fighting, thieving, "barding." But because of their order (the bardic colleges), they are required to focus their career on certain paths to prove themselves...like requiring a person to spend time as a "resident" before awarding them the title of "doctor." In order to grow in their craft, they must exercise firm discipline and focus on each branch, growing in strength and proficiency as they hone each skill set. It's not that the character "suddenly learns thief abilities;" rather, the character has only reached a point of satisfaction with their fighter focus that they can (at last) turn their attention to the thief aspect of their class. And so on.

I dig it...I really do. But it's not just the flavor of the class that I like...it is the practical way it operates. It fulfills its own niche, a niche un-shared by any other character type. The bard is strong...and it plays well at the table. At least, that's been my experience.

And I've had a lot of experience with the bard.

; )

Mystery Dice Goblin

Sometimes people ask me to review their products. Sometimes they send me their products. My time is limited and my bandwidth for a lot of these things is...even more limited.

Mystery Dice Goblin is a group that sells dice and dice accessories (bags, etc.). Like all gaming nerds, I've purchased plenty of such things over the years, to the point that I'm a bit jaded: if I'm going to buy a dice bag or box, it better be some sort of hand-crafted, artistic nonsense, and better be in a price point that doesn't make me feel like an idiot (or is just so cool that I can't live without it). Usually, I'm a "pass" on most such things.

And dice? I have enough dice. 

But they sent me some of their signature product: their "mystery dice" bag: a small, resealable bag with a full set of seven dice. They sent me three such bags, which my kids and I quickly divided up.

And what do you know...the gimmick works! It's kind of cool to rip open a mystery bag and 'oo' and 'ah' over the dice inside. All three of the sets were different, with gemlike finishes and inset, colored numbers. Of the three sets, two of them were nice enough that they might have been worth purchasing even had they been visible (sadly, my set was not to my taste...but two out of three ain't bad).

Pic is from their web site...

As a stocking stuffer, or birthday party gift bag or similar, these are great little packets for handing out to kids (or adults) who are into geeky dice games. And the price is good: a six pack of mystery bags is only $40, which is cheaper than a standard $8-10 box. And, as said, the gimmick's fun. Like ripping into a Cracker Jack box to get the prize. Dig it.

All right: Friday commercial done.

In other news: disappointing Seahawks game last night, but we've watched a lot of disappointing Seahawks-Niners match-ups the last couple years. Two dwarf teams in a row (Giants, too)...and dwarves are rough for orks. Especially when the dwarves are GOOD (which is the case with San Francisco, injuries or not). *sigh*

Watched The Spine of Night the other day. Not bad. But not great. The story felt very post-apocalyptic up until the end when it gets all mythical, fallen gods, and blah-blah-blah. Would have preferred fallen space men in a 50th century Earth, but oh well (AND, if one is looking for inspiration for a PA, warring city-state campaign world, the first hour or so is pretty groovy). Some of the (still) art was great. Some of the animation was pretty...mm..."pedestrian."  In other words, the movie was a mixed bag and uneven. However, for what is (basically) a 90 minute film that would have been par for Heavy Metal magazine, it wasn't terrible. 

And...this ain't the greatest blog post. But it's Friday and I'm busy. Later gators!

Old Friends

Last night, I attended Josh's 50th birthday bash.

Damn. Who's Josh? some folks are asking. Well, waaaaay back at the start of last decade (i.e. 2010), Josh was one of my regular Thursday Night gaming group down at the Baranof in Greenwood. Even though it's been a decade plus since that group ended (I moved to Paraguay in 2014, remember?) I've kept in touch with Josh...even been out to see his bar band a couple times in the last year. Our family exchanges Christmas cards. He's good people.

ANYway...for his birthday he had an "adult pizza party" (i.e. they rented out a loft of a nearby pizza parlor and served a lot of beer...). Like Josh himself, the affair was low-key and causal: no cake, candles, or singing, and the invitees were an assortment of work buddies, band members, and old friends plus a few wives/girlfriends. A fairly small gathering all told...maybe a couple dozen people?

But several of those people were the old gaming crew: Matthew was there with his wife, and Matt, and also Randy (the youngest of our original group, now turned 40). Guys I haven't see in over a decade for the most part. 

And, man, it was good to see and talk to them. Yeah, we're all looking older now: fatter, grayer (or straight-up bald). But damn, at least everyone was positive. Stress levels seem fairly low, attitudes were pretty upbeat. Maybe it was the festive atmosphere, or the reason we'd gathered, or just that folks felt the same as me...just good to catch up with old friends in a casual environment. Or maybe, it's just that Josh attracts "good people" as friends. 

Or maybe it has something to do with us all leaving our kids at home. I do hang out with adults...often!...at various events, but they almost always involve a passel of kids (school, sports, a funeral I attended Friday, etc.) And around kids (our own or other folks) we always seem to be slightly on edge and/or uptight. We have to watch what we're saying; we have to model proper behavior, etc. It's not that Josh's party saw a lot of people cutting loose and getting crazy...as I said it was low-key and dignified. But still: that slight stress of little eyes watching and little ears listening and little minds learning...that stress was lifted. And that was nice.

SO, funny enough, there ended up being a LOT of D&D talk at the gathering. Not just with the old crew, but with new people I'd never met. Apparently, even though I don't hang with those guys anymore, they still talk about me. And about our old games. And so I got introduced around as the old Dungeon Master guy and they wanted to know what I was up to and yadda-yadda-yadda.  Spent quite a bit of time in four different conversations explaining 1st edition AD&D and how and why I run my games the way I do.

[just so folks know, I did spend time in OTHER conversations, too: about kids and school and weather and soccer and Paraguay and politics and earthquakes and bands and food and all that other 'casual party conversation' jazz...I'm not a TOTAL nerd, even if (these days) I am an unrepentant one]

One guy, slightly older than me, was talking about his newfound love of DMing (he boldly stated that when he retires, DMing is the main thing he plans on doing). He runs all sorts of games, but goes more for the "rules light" stuff these days (he talked about enjoying his Mothership game). Me being ntroduced to the guy as a "good DM" by Josh, he wanted to pick my brain for my thoughts on why people consider my games "good" or (I assume) enjoyable. I was not trying to convert the guy over to "my side" or anything (that kind of preachy-ness is something I reserve for the blog), but even so, I think I might have changed his perspective a little bit. Here's a guy who's been running regular games with regular (adult) people for the last four years, and all of a sudden I could see him opening his eyes (or, rather, his mind) to the possibility of running D&D as a true game, rather than as this role-playing thing (which he's not as big into anyway).

Randy and Matt and Matthew also, it turns out, are still gaming together, doing a regular Thursday night thing along with another old Baranof crony, Heron (aka the Iron Goat). They are running 5E these days, but I didn't give them a hard time about it...instead we talked about the various things they liked (playing D&D with good friends, generally) and the things they didn't (differences in play styles, min-maxing versus role-playing, lack of player agency because of story based rewards, length/complication of combat encounters, etc.). Again...and this is important!...I did NOT make any attempt to criticize or rain on their parade with eulogies about "what they're doing wrong" or anything like that; I save that kind of dickishness for Ye Old Blog. I just wanted to listen and explained my own, current, perspective on the D&D game (short version: I've found the robustness of 1E to be more conducive to long-term campaign play, and focus more on the world building than previously).  It would seem that currently their characters are around 9th level and they are getting ready to take on a god and so (perhaps) they're campaign is starting to wind down a bit(?). "Sounds like you're having a good time," is about all I said to that.

But I did offer some of my perspective on the "min-maxer" v. "role-player" thing. Matt was the one being offered up as the example of the former (he complained to me a bit...in a side conversation...about how his character, a rogue, has become an "advantage junkie," needing to gain his backstab bonus damage just to feel like he's contributing to the group; meanwhile, Matthew was the one being roasted for his penchant for "role-playing," making sub-optimal decisions or getting caught up in tangential ideas. Having DMed both these guys before, my labels for them would be a little different: Matt is more task focused and Matthew enjoys the escapism of a fantasy world. The fix for both players is pretty much the same...run a 1E game...but I didn't say that (well, not exactly or explicitly). But I did try to share how world building and offering players more agency in how they interact with the world  could assuage or mitigate these tendencies (currently viewed as idiosyncratic if not problematic). 

Or, at least, that's what I tried to do. It's fine; they're having fun. Matt said he even 'bit the bullet' and purchased/downloaded the new 2024 PHB (though I didn't hear a whole lot of enthusiasm for One D&D...). As I said, I really was NOT trying to convert anyone to anything.

There will come a time, in the not-so-distant future, when I will finally get off my ass and start running a regular game for adults again (I've even picked out the bar I want to run at and, no, it is NOT the Baranof). Even then, when that happens, I don't plan on being some sort of evangelist preaching the "Gospel of AD&D." I'm jut going to run the game. Having seen the power of 1E in action, I expect the players will end up converting themselves into "true believers" (as often happens).  To which I'll strive to give the proper response: I just run the game. I'm only using this ruleset because it works for the kind of game I want to run...The End. 

Anyhoo. It was nice seeing the boys again. It was nice talking D&D shop with nerds my age. It was nice that Randy expressed his appreciation for me introducing him to the game (a game he's now been DMing for 10 years). It was nice to be remembered fondly. Hell, it was nice Josh's drummer invited me to karaoke to show off my vocal chops (I politely declined). It was just a nice evening.

After a long Saturday of soccer games and running around with the family it was nice to have a break. I'm really glad I went.