Starting Your (AD&D) Game

Over the last MANY years of writing this blog, I've read (or fielded) countless questions from people asking how to start their D&D campaign. Not all of them come right out and say this; they couch it in lots of ways: How can I get my 5E players to play B/X?  My OSE players are reluctant to play AD&D, what should I do? How do you build a 'world?' How do do you run a 'long-term' game like you describe? Etc., etc.

It's all pretty much the same question (i.e. how do you start a D&D campaign from scratch), and while most of the answers I give to people is...more or less...the same stuff (this is why I say it's "pretty much the same question"), it would probably behoove me to just write up a post of my thoughts on the matter, so that I have a single place to direct folks.  

In the past, I've put off this idea because, well, who am I to give advice? Plus...what do I know? But I'm at the point now of 'f**k it...they keep asking me and no one else seems to be giving 'em what they need so, yeah.'  ALSO...I feel like I've finally got a handle on the entire subject (which was NOT the case in the past).

Now, be warned: while this may be (yet another) long-ish post, the subject matter could probably fill a book...a book I hope to write one day; this is still just a quick-n-dirty version. Call it the "Cliff notes" version:

Step 1: Decide You Want To Run A Campaign

"Wait! Didn't I already do that?" Hold on, little cowpoke...it ain't that simple. Running a campaign takes some time and effort (what is commonly called "work"). Have you decided you are really up for it? Do you have the temperament for the job? Do you know the rules of the game such that you can dungeon master a table full of unruly kids/teens/adults? No matter what your level of ego or "personal God complex" is, you need to be able to act and speak with authority (authority which comes from being a knowledgable arbiter of the game rules). If you just want to tell stories and be creative and "wing it" then you are going to SUCK as a DM...and eventually this will lead to the dissolution of your table (and even if your players don't lose interest, you will). 

Even if you DO know the rules and you're willing to give it a go...do you have the time to commit to the game? Be honest! Are you expecting or currently raising a new baby? Do you have day job that requires 60+ hours a week? A demanding spouse? An invalid relative that you care for? A farm to run?  Olympics to train for? Yeah, you can juggle two or three of these things AND run a campaign (maybe)...if you give up the television, video games, and other hobbies (golf, skiing, whatever) that occupy your free time.  Of course, you can also just run an "irregular" game...which is what I do...but I wouldn't recommend that unless, like me, you're drawing players from your own household (i.e. my kids and their friends).  For busy adults and semi-adults, you're going to want to run a REGULAR game (i.e. one that meets with regularity: weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc.). Do you have the bandwidth to do that? Be honest! It's okay! Maybe right now is not the best time for you, but you can play D&D until your brain dies so it's okay to put off your "grand campaign" for the moment. And you can still world build in your spare time. 

Step 2: Build Your World

So you've decided to run a campaign. Great! Now the fun...and the work...begins. First, you need a world ("Wait, don't I need players?" Not yet), a setting for your campaign. 

I'll be honest: this was the part that stymied me for YEARS. Because it starts with a map...and maps aren't my strong suit (for what it's worth, my "strong suit" is running adventures). But maybe you are skilled with drawing up fantasy worlds. Or maybe you have a particular fantasy world you want to pull from. Back in the 1980s (when I was growing up) lots of fantasy books had maps printed inside the front cover...no doubt taking inspiration from Tolkien's Middle Earth. You can use one of those. Or you can use some pre-packaged game setting (Greyhawk, the Young Kingdoms, etc.). Or maybe, you want to go the easy route I finally settled on and just use a real world region from our real world globe (my world is the Pacific Northwest, a region with which I'm intimately familiar). 

In the end it doesn't matter too much where you get your world map from, just so long as you have a map. Because you can't run a campaign without a map. You want a setting like Martin's Game of Thrones book? Cool. Or you could just do what he did and blow up the UK to a huge size. Where you get the map doesn't matter; what MATTERS is that the map is small enough that you can manage it, but large enough that it has the proper range of diversity for the adventures you envision (some day) creating.  Do you want pirates adventures? Then it's going to need a sea. Mountain fortresses? Then you need mountains. Warring kingdoms? You need areas that could conceivably hold farmland supporting (civilized) populations. Etc.

[don't worry about the Underdark or the Astral plane...the nice thing about these areas is that they're not confined to the world map...you can always build down (into the bowels of the earth) or out into other planes/dimensions]

Once you have your map, make sure that you like it, because that's what you're going to be using for the foreseeable future...hopefully for the rest of your life. The dedicated DM doesn't just "change worlds" every year or two. World building is not about building multiple worlds (drawing new worlds over and over again); 'world building' is about detailing the world to which you're committed. And that detailing can last a lifetime. Look at Tolkien. Look at Gygax. Look at any DM who runs a long-term campaign, or any author dedicated to setting their books in a particular world. 

So make sure you like the world and that it has enough room for the kind of game you want to run. My choice of the Pacific Northwest gives me lots of great stuff: wide open plains, dense forests, mountain ranges, deserts, volcanoes, rivers, population areas and farmland, sea coasts, etc. Lots of places for adventure.

Step 2B: The Starting Location

Once you have your world, you should choose the area you want to start your players. I didn't always do this in the past: in some games I'd run, I'd show the players the map and say "where do you want to start." This is not a great idea (especially if you're creating your world from whole cloth and all the players have is a brief description of various regions). No, decide where they'll be starting. Ideally, it should provide places where they can buy the basic (PHB list) equipment and find safe lodging, as well as several possible adventuring opportunities (i.e. places to make money and earn experience points). Perhaps there's a road that's been plagues by bandits/highwaymen. Perhaps there are man-eating predators that need hunting. Perhaps there's a nearby tomb or ruin that seems ripe for exploration. Perhaps there's a secret slave-ring in the area that's been kidnapping folks.

Whatever adventures you think of, they should be things that are accessible to the players through the normal rumor mill. That is, they've HEARD that travelers have been waylaid or everyone knows the legend of Broken Down Keep or there have been whisperings and worries about kidnappings. Etc. These are the rumors you give the players to start. They don't need to know the history of the region or the various political factions of neighboring regions, etc. These things will come up as the campaign progresses and evolves. For now just think: town + adventures. And make sure at least some of the adventures are suitable for beginning adventurers.

Step 3: Find Players

Ah, the all important "find players" step. The most important step, right?

Nope.

Here is the great secret I've discovered over the decades of playing/running RPGs: there are always more players than there are DMs. Truthfully, there are FAR MORE players than DMs...possibly too many potential players for potential DMs to accommodate. There are plenty of players. What we have a dearth of is DMs.  And competent, committed DMs are even fewer.

Yeah, there was a time 20-30 years ago when it was tough to put together a group of players. But it's not like that anymore. The internet and various social platforms makes it easier to connect with wannabe gamers than ever before. And the D&D brand itself enjoys more brand recognition...and less stigma...than it ever has in its history.

Now, in the past I've written about introducing new players to "old school" play, specifically B/X (I've also written, briefly, about converting existing latter-edition PCs to the same system). But these days, I'm playing AD&D, and those thoughts of six years ago (!!) have changed a bit.

Your potential AD&D player is going to fall into one of these categories:

• "The Enthusiast" - this person is familiar with AD&D, having either played it in the past or researched the heck out of it (reading the PHB, etc.), and is actively interested in a 1E game. This used to be a pretty small group, but they're growing. For these individuals, you don't have to do much but explain your particular house rules up front (and I suggest keeping these minimal).
• "The Newb" - is the person with zero or near zero experience with D&D in any form. I run a lot of these types because I most often run kids; however, I've been approached by several parents of these kids who have 'always had an interest in D&D but never got the chance to play.'  Also, young adults who've only encountered the game through what they've seen on Stranger Things or other television shows. These folks are easily acculturated to AD&D and can quickly become enthusiasts.  Always keep in mind that the AD&D game was built on the backs of newbs.
• "The Old Schooler" - these folks are rather easily found in online spaces, and they are generally experienced with old edition D&D...most often Basic or some sort of Basic clone (OSE, LL, etc.) or 'rules-light' abomination. The good thing about these folks is that most already have an understanding of the basic premise/concepts of D&D, so they require less explanation than the newbs. And many of these would be quite happy to play in a 1E game (it's all just D&D to them, so long as they don't need to 'know a bunch of rules' or act in a DM capacity).  But there are a few of these folks that aren't really interested in D&D in its long-form; for these folks 'old school game play' is just a scene, a lark, a passing diversion. If you find one of these latter type, you're going to want to cull them from your flock.
• "The New Schooler" - these are the folks who play 5E or Pathfinder or some other latter day form of D&D. You can find even more of these folks on-line than the Old Schooler (they are Legion), and here the challenge is their deeply held beliefs/expectations of what the game is and how it operates. Converting them to 1E requires them to let go of these attachments...something that many of them are loathe to do especially if they've achieved any degree of system mastery OR if these 'new school' concepts (character customization, story creation, etc.) are the very things that drew them to the D&D game. But even here you can find potential AD&D players; generally, they fall into one of three categories: "The Burnout" (who's simply tired of the uselessness of short-term new school play and wants 'something more'), "The Open-Mind" (who just likes playing games, baby, and understands 1E is just a different type/style of RPG), and "The Innocent" (who is pretty much a newb, but happens to be sitting in a 5E game at the moment). The important thing when cultivating New Schoolers to an AD&D game is that you canNOT accommodate their new school assumptions and desires to your campaign. No matter how tempting it is, or how much they wheedle that it will 'make the game more fun.' Don't do it, folks. This is POISON to your AD&D campaign. Explain that you're playing a different game, that you are the DM, and that these are the rules. You must assert your authority from the beginning, or the players will have no respect for your world or your game..and you cannot effectively run a campaign without authority, and you will simply grow to resent your players and your own weakness. Don't go down that road!
• "The Hater" - these are the people who assert that AD&D sucks, for whatever reason. Possibly they played it in the past and (having had a bad time) have moved on to editions they prefer...or possibly they don't even game anymore. Or they have heard such terrible things about it that they are altogether resistant to the idea. In rare cases you can still find potential 1E players in this category...but they are probably not going to be part of your initial group. They're going to have to first see (or hear about) you running a successful, enjoyable game, before agreeing to 'try it out.' In some cases, you may have such charisma..or personal rapport with the Hater...that you can convince them to give it a shot from the get-go. But you cannot (and should not!) force or manipulate this type of person into playing the game...they will be a surly, black cloud that will drag everything down. You can extend the invitation, but only allow them in once they are TRULY on-board and open to the idea.

Do not despair if you find it slow-going putting together a gaming group. Dedicated campaigns have (in my experience) a tendency to "pick-up momentum" over time...you start with one or two players and over a matter of months (or weeks) it snowballs into eight or ten. When I ran my weekly game at the bar, I eventually had to turn people away...something I don't like doing. Not because the bar-flies would join, but because enthusiastic players would bring their friends. Who would bring their friends. Etc.

As I said, there are far more wannabe players out there then there are dedicated, committed DMs. Google estimates some 50 million people have experience with D&D and there's 1.35 billion English speakers in the world...that's 3.7%. But let's say that only .001% of people are actually "potential" D&D players...how many would that be in your town?  In Seattle proper (which probably has a higher percentage of nerds than other parts of the country) that would be nearly 800 people; in the "greater Seattle area" that number skyrockets to 4K. Look, I don't really want to handle more than 8 regular players...let alone 800!...and 7 is pretty much my optimal range. I'm perfectly happy running for groups of 3-4 (which is what my current group is) supplementing the party with NPCs and henchfolk. 

The point is: there are plenty of players. Plenty of them around the world (if you're willing to play on-line). But even in your home town...it only takes one or two acquaintances agreeing to sit down and roll dice. And the game will grow from there. Especially if those acquaintances have any acquaintances in their social circles that want to hang and roll dice and "experience adventure." It really just takes ONE DM willing to commit themselves to a campaign, one who knows the rules and who can provide solid, competent refereeing.

Step 3B (or 3A): Find A Venue

This should probably come before Step 3 (Find Players) but a lot of times your choice of venue is dependent on that first player or two. You need a place to host your game and a time to host it. It does no good to invite a bunch of people to play D&D with you if you have no where to run the thing. 

Not everyone wants to run a game out of their own home (my non-gamer wife would certainly pitch a fit if I invited a bunch of rando strangers to chill in our dining room...). So you'll have to find an agreeable venue over which YOU (the DM) has some measure of control (i.e. not a player's house!). A local game shop, a library, a bar (preferably on a quieter night), etc. are all possible venues, making sure you negotiate with the people up front that you plan on running a regular game session at the establishment. Some businesses will welcome such an event (bars and coffee shops generally like the business). But you have to have a place with a committed day and time for your game.

For the players, this shows your dedication to the campaign and (thus) to the players (i.e. themselves) who are participating in the campaign. If they know the day, time, and location they can plan their lives and carve out the time from their schedules; it allows the players to decide whether or not they can commit to the campaign. It does little good to be loosey-goosey with this step, even in the name of "flexibility" for the players...you will reap exactly what you sow in this regard.

Find a time and place that can work for you, on a regular basis.  If it has to change in the future, so be it (and that might cost you some players), but until it has to change, stick with it.

Step 4: First Session

I don't do any kind of "session zero." I don't have that kind of time to waste.

When I sit down with a new group (usually this only happens in a Con or demo setting), I have a little spiel I give that goes something like this:

"So, okay, we are going to be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, called AD&D for short (sometimes known as "first edition" or "1E"). If you're familiar with the game...

[here I do a brief head check or hand raise to see who knows AD&D]

"...I play pretty much by the rules with a few exceptions...

[I briefly list my 3-4 pertinent exceptions for the AD&D players at the table]

"...and perhaps a couple others that will arise later in play. What you need to know, at this point, is that you are a group of adventurers seeking fortune and fame in dangerous locations. You will each create a character that will be your role and vehicle for exploring the game world. As the Dungeon Master, I create the game world and control all the various denizens, people, and creatures you encounter. I run the world, and you tell me how you want to act in the world.

[I'll leave off those last couple sentences if everyone at the table knows what D&D is]

"I want to emphasize from the outset that AD&D is a cooperative game. Each of you will have different skills and abilities depending on your character; you will all find ways to contribute. If you can pull together as a team, you'll have a much better chance of surviving and thriving. I don't allow player vs. player ("pvp") fighting in my game: your characters are assumed to know better than to attack each other when they are already beset by dangers all around."

[again, I might leave off that last bit for folks who've already played at my table]

"As professional adventurers, your job is to face dangers and find treasure. Because treasure finding is your profession and objective of play, any loot you recover during the adventure is worth experience points to your characters. Acquiring more experience points will make your character better at their abilities...but only if they survive. Right now, your characters are beginning adventurers with NO experience under their belts, and the little money you have should be invested in equipment that you feel will help you on your adventure."

We then make characters. When playing in my home, we usually have two or three PHBs to hand around the table. I work with the new players to create their characters. We use Method I from the DMG for rolling ability scores (4D6 six times, take best three, arrange to taste), but the player must have at least two ability scores ranked at 15+ to be considered viable characters (as per the first paragraph on p. 9 of the PHB). In convention settings, or if doing a demo, I always bring pre-gens to the table, but when starting a campaign, I think it's important everyone make a character. Even with rank novices, this process doesn't take much longer than 30-35 minutes to complete.

We then settle in to play. I always offer an adventure scenario (i.e. a "dungeon") that focuses the players and gets them working together, and that is suitable for a group of 1st level PCs. All those other "hooks" created back in Step 2B? Those come into play AFTER the initial dungeon foray. The players need to have a chance to test their skills and mettle...and discover how their fellow adventurers perform...before they can be hit with a variety of choices of "what to do next." Once they've had a chance to enter (and leave) the first dungeon, THEN you give them a bunch of rumors of possible money-making opportunities (all hooks should have some sort of financial incentive to it). They can then decide whether or not they want to continue plumbing the first dungeon, or moving on to other...potentially greener...pastures.

This is the game; it only expands from there. You will build more onto your campaign between sessions, possibly expanding things that come up on the fly during the running of the game. But the players who enjoy this type of "adventure gaming" will be hooked, and they will endeavor to make it back to the next session (possibly bringing buddies)...which is why you need to already have a commitment to a scheduled place/time on the books.

Okay, that's a lot. Any questions?

; )

Something To Listen To

It's Friday, which means (I suppose) that it's time to pen another post for the slowest readership day of the week. *sigh* 

I've been busy (yes, yes, we know...). My birthday was on Wednesday, and the family went down to the Paramount to watch the stage musical Wicked. Never seen it before, but I remember when the book came out (back in the mid-90s). I've enjoyed these "retellings from the villain's perspective" stories immensely over the years (Maleficent, Circe, etc.). Of course, Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon was probably the first and best of of these...then again, I've never read Mr. Maguire's novel. Certainly, no one's made a musical out of MZB's book, but I'd guess that's due to Morgan Le Fay having less 'cultural cache' then the Wicked Witch of the West.

Anyway, it was pretty good. The performances were top notch, especially Ephaba whose technical proficiency (voice wise) was pretty impressive...I don't remember witnessing that kind of singing ability since (perhaps) Phantom of the Opera. The production itself was pretty spectacular (some really elaborate set and costume design), even if the story was a little light-weight. Our family enjoyed it.

[by the way, I find it a little weird this recent theme in media of humanizing both the 'outsider' and the 'establishment' and bringing them together in these kumbaya stories (Wednesday Addams, anyone?). Maybe that's just me, but...well, whatever. Sign of the times, I guess]

The other thing I spent half the week listening to was the exceptionally good When We Were Wizards podcast. 15 episodes of oral history about the foundations of Dungeons & Dragons, TSR, and the rise and fall of Gary Gygax as told by the people who were there...and there were a lot of people interviewed for the show. Yes, quite fascinating, and rather compulsive listening...even my 10 year old got sucked into listening to multiple episodes.  Gary's personal story is as incredible as it is tragic.  Few people in this world are propelled into immense fame and fortune by falling into the exact right set of circumstances for their time and talent...and fewer still (if any) are prepared to handle it with wisdom and maturity. 

For those of us who enjoy the game of Dungeons & Dragons, we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Gygax and to all those people who helped in the game's creation. But mostly, I think, to Gygax.

Okay, that's enough. I have a couple things to work on today (perhaps for a weekend blog post? We'll see...). But right now, I might enjoy another slice of this delicious pineapple upside down cake that my wife bakes me every year for my birthday. Goes perfect with the morning coffee.

Cheers!

: )

Answering the Dragon's Call

In my last post, I discussed my discovery of the old podcast "Chasing the Dragon" (a somewhat amusing title, considering I associate it with heroin smoking) in which a young-ish DM discusses his foray into learning 1st edition AD&D...a project I think is great. In his first episode, he asked a couple gamer buddies...both of whom had some 1E experience...a series of questions, getting their thoughts on the game.

I didn't like the answers they gave.

Of course, this was 2016. Back then, I wasn't worried in the slightest about AD&D (being rather preoccupied with living in Paraguay and raising a 5 year old boy and 2 year old girl). However, if Jason "the Mad Cleric" were to ask me this same set of questions, right now in 2024, here's what I would say:

(02:33)  "Have I absolutely lost my mind? Is learning AD&D and trying to go through all of Gygax's modules just absolutely crazy? What are your thoughts?"

I assume that by "crazy" you mean, 'Is this a waste of my time?' Specifically with the context that there have been some half-dozen D&D editions published since 1E and 1E not being supported by the company currently publishing the brand. The short answer is "no." There are plenty of people still playing 1E, plenty of of folks still interested in learning to play 1E. These people are all over the world, united by the internet, and many of them are kids and young people. It is a viable system, and one that is readily available...currently...via 'print-on demand.' In my own opinion, it is the only edition worth playing (I'm a busy guy). Most (if not all) of the editions published since 1E were done so MAINLY for business reasons.

(04:36)  "When did you first play? What do you remember from that first experience? What did you take away from it?"

I've detailed my personal history with D&D elsewhere; my friends and I started playing "full AD&D" (i.e. not some hybrid/Frankenstein game) circa November/December of 1984. I played till roughly 1990, when I put it aside in favor of other RPGs. I returned to 1E play in November of 2020, and have played it ever since. With regard to my first experience, I don't remember much specifically, save that it was exhilarating and exactly the creative outlet my friends and I needed. What I took away in 1990 (when I quit the game) was the false idea that one needs the right mix of friends/chemistry to make the game work, something I never thought I'd achieve again. However, I now understand that making the game work is largely a matter of commitment, something that (until I restarted four years ago) I had been unwilling and/or unable to do. As I wrote previously, I now consider it the only edition worth playing.

(10:03)  "So how long did you play AD&D?"

Roughly six years the first stint (1984-1990). After that I played many other RPGs NOT named Dungeons & Dragons. I got back into D&D play circa 2000 and back into old edition play around 2009. I've played 1E exclusively since November 2020...however, I've continuously owned and studied all my old books since the days of my youth, so even when I wasn't playing I had plenty of exposure to the system and Gygax's writings.

(12:34)  "Where do you think the AD&D mechanics excel?"

AD&D's mechanics excel at facilitating adventure gaming, a type of role-playing utterly unconcerned with "role-playing" (in the sense of portraying some sort of fictional character) or "creating stories" (in a literary sense). It does this by providing the tools...both in terms of mechanics and (what I'll call) "attitude" for long-term, engaging game play.

(15:16)  "Tell us how the skill checks would be dissimilar from Pathfinder or another game you might be familiar with?"

With the exception of a handful of highly specific classes (thieves, assassins, monks, and bards) there are no ubiquitous "skill checks" in AD&D. All classes in AD&D have their own suite of capabilities, but the ability scores are not used (unlike post-2000 editions of D&D) for determining "chance to succeed," instead providing modifiers to specific, targeted mechanics. Later books in the 1E series (Oriental Adventures, the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, the Wilderness Survival Guide) offered a rudimentary "skill system" (as the term would be thought of in modern "trad" gaming) based on "non-weapon proficiencies," but these were never integral to the 1E game (being given in HIGHLY OPTIONAL supplementary texts) contribute nothing of note and are (IMO) poorly done. With regard to the "skill checks" of the specific classes mentioned, "thief skills" are rolled using percentile dice; actual targets are based on the level of the character and slightly modified by race and DEX scores...success is accomplished by rolling UNDER the target number; in 1E, "higher" does not always equal "better."

(25:30)  "Why is this game, 1st edition, like that [an adversarial, tactical skirmish game instead of a 'role-playing game'], do you think?...and it's been kind of passed down to the other editions...do you think it's because it was written by one guy, and he was a war gamer in the past? And it just kind of bled over into his book? What's your take on that?"

It is like "that" because it was specifically designed in this way; D&D originally carried the subtitle "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames." Modern understanding is poor when it comes to what D&D is and was, let alone its potential. Why was it written as a "war game?" Because it was created by war gamers Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. The "role-playing" part grows out of game play organically, but AD&D is first and foremost a GAME, as Gygax makes abundantly clear in the text of his Dungeon Masters Guide. People who want to make it something other than "that" would be better served by finding an RPG aimed specifically at the type of gaming their looking for. Plenty of RPGs on the market to meet different needs.

(28:52)  "Have you guys actually played any of [Gygax's] modules? Because my understanding...and I haven't read any of them yet...is that a lot of them are just meatgrinders, absolute meatgrinders. And your character's going to die, and there's no time to pause, there's no real storyline to get to the end...is that descriptive of all of his stuff? What have y'all played of his modules? And what'd you take away from it?"

Your "understanding" is poor. Gygax wrote exactly 17 adventure modules for D&D, only 16 of which were written for (or adapted to AD&D (The Keep on the Borderlands was written to be included with the introductory Basic D&D box set). Of these 16, I own all but three and have run 11 of those 13 (I will note that I have run B2 KotB MANY TIMES, but only for B/X, never AD&D...it is not designed for AD&D). I wouldn't characterize any of Gygax's modules as "meatgrinders," with the possible exception of Tomb of Horrors...then again, much depends on how you define the term "meatgrinder." AD&D is intentionally designed to be adversarial, and poor play often results in character death; if your only experience with D&D play is a latter day edition in which death is rare (5E, for example) then, sure, you might consider ANY of the old TSR modules fairly bloody (with the notable exception of UK1). Gygax's modules specifically apply pressure and challenge in masterful fashion to provide a rich gaming experience; his adventures are widely considered some of the best published, and I don't disagree.

(33:57)  "Do you think players today would have patience for that [losing a high number of PCs...like one for every 1-2 hours of play...to in-game "death"]? Do you think people would be like 'this game sucks, let's play another game?'"

Having introduced the AD&D game to MANY players over the years, some as young as 9 or 10, my experience is that players love AD&D and are just fine with the level of danger it presents. And I kill a LOT of PCs in my games...I don't really 'pull punches' when it comes to running D&D. However, losing a character every 1-2 hours is pretty exorbitant...my players (all under the age of 14) can go many sessions without losing a PC to death. 1E is actually quite forgiving compared to OD&D or the various Basic D&D games and their clones: higher PC hit points, more clerical/healing magic, and a negative hit point "buffer" all provide AD&D characters with more staying power. And yet TPKs still happen (when players really screw up)...and that constant threat of death makes the game experience very fun, even as the plethora of "raise dead" options means a beloved character can usually be brought back to life...for a price. No, I don't ever hear cries of 'this game sucks' at my table. 

(39:39)  "You don't hear about a lot of people that are playing 4th edition saying, 'Hey, I'm going back to 1st edition because it was so awesome, and that was the game that was so much fun!' So what about AD&D is just not good? Like, what is it that was a misstep, that you're so glad they fixed...in 2nd edition or some later form?"

You don't hear a lot of 4E players saying they want to "go back" to 1E, because many of them...like YOU...have no experience playing 1E. They started with 4E...or 3E or 2E...and, frankly, don't know what they're missing. Others may have started with 1E but are slaves to playing whatever new hot edition is supported by "the company" and don't have the gumption to stick with something "outdated." Still others played 1E poorly...or had poor experiences with the system...and have never experienced the edition's full potential. Again, what you may not understand is that the company moved on from 1E mainly for business reasons: TSR ousted Gygax from the company but he continued to collect royalties for any book that carried his name, and 2E was a means of breaking that financial leash. But after Gygax's removal, TSR largely became a paperback novel publishing company (rather than a game company) and the quality of gaming material went down the tubes. 3E was published after TSR was purchased by WotC and a new system was designed to rehab the brand using "modern" game mechanics. 4E was published to give the company a cash infusion (i.e. forcing players to re-buy the new core books) and to capitalize on the MMORPG craze of the time (specifically World of Warcraft). 5E was rolled out as a "great compromise edition" specifically with the goal of recapturing marketshare and brand recognition after the disaster that was 4E. So, NO...1E wasn't "fixed" by any of the later editions. Later editions of D&D have only served to make the game worse in various ways. I have my own house rules...as any long-running 1E Dungeon Master is inclined to have...but NONE of those come from later editions of D&D. The vast majority of later edition changes have only served to make the game worse (although they also served to make the company money).

(44:30)  "So...do you think this game punishes players? It sounds like it's a 'DM's game' more than a 'players' game.'"

Again, the game is designed to be adversarial...it is designed to challenge the players. For the challenge to be real (i.e. for the challenge to matter) there must be consequences to failure. If there isn't, then there's little point to playing except mental masturbation. So does the game "punish" players? No, it "punishes" poor play (if you want to call those consequences "punishment;" I don't). But I've found most players ENJOY the type of adventure experience the AD&D game provides. 

(47:38)  "So, for myself or for anyone else who wants to learn AD&D what advice would you give? And with your advice I'd also ask for your two best house rules that you can remember."

I put these questions to my kids (ages 13 and 10) and they gave great advice: know the adventure you're running, know the rules you're running, prepare to adapt your game to the actions of the players. The house rules  they felt were most important included all dice rolls in the open, no PVP ('player vs. player conflict) at the table, no cell phones at the table, and no goofing off.  With regard to specific rule tweaks, the two most important ones I use are A) clerics need not memorize their spells ahead of time (they pray for their spell when a specific miracle is needed), and B) spells that are "ruined" in combat (because the spell-caster is damaged during the casting) are not "lost;" spells are only expended upon a successful casting. If I could ONLY change two rules in the game, those would be the ones...and if I could only change ONE rule, it would be the first (regarding clerical spells). Everything else in AD&D (especially racial class restrictions and level caps) I either enjoy or can easily live with.

(56:34)  "Do you have any final thoughts?"

So many. 1st edition AD&D may be difficult to parse and figure out, even for an experienced Dungeon Master, but it IS possible. My friends and I did it...at the age of 11 and 12...without any mentoring or parental help. I understand that the rapidly declining literacy of our culture may make this more difficult, but it's still possible. And its embarrassingly easy to teach people how to play (as players), even kids as young as 7 and 8 years old. I grok that some folks may be intimidated to play 1E, but it's really not rocket science, and there are many on-line groups, forums, discords, etc. where one can find advice, support, and help with learning. The game is easily (and cheaply) purchased through P.O.D. sources, and even cheaper if you just want a PDF/ebook. For less than $50, you can buy all three core books (PHB, DMG, and MM) plus a set of dice and you'll have a game that can provide DECADES of enjoyment. It's the greatest game ever published. And it's unfortunate that so many RPGamers...probably the majority...will never figure this out. However, there are some of us out here that are willing and able to help...willing and able to provide whatever knowledge we can, to aid in spreading the love for this game.

Best wishes.

: )

Chasing The Dragon

So, I like podcasts. As a stay-at-home dad, I'm busy (a lot) but usually not doing stuff that takes up too much of my 'mental attention.' Throwing on the headphones while cooking, cleaning, or driving is something I do.

[okay, no, I don't use headphones while driving...but you get the drift]

Most often, it's sports or news-related, but...as often as I can find it...I like to listen to podcasts about gaming. At least, about the type of gaming I do.

So it was Tuesday, that I was searching through my iHeart radio app, looking for podcasts...any kind of podcast!...about 1st edition AD&D. Because I needed something to occupy my mind, and throwing on CNN in the background was not my idea of "relaxing white noise."

And LO I found one: Chasing the Dragon, by a guy named Jason Wood, AKA The Mad Cleric. Started in 2016 (jeez...pre-Covid), he dropped all of six episodes, documenting his "quest" to learn and play AD&D (1E). No idea if he's still playing AD&D...his last 1E-related blog post appears to be from 2017 (though he did attend GaryCon in 2024). His is not a very active blog.

ANYhoo, I listened to the whole series. It's pretty good (very listenable) but also...so, so frustrating.

I'll explain: Jason (or "TMC," as I'll hereafter refer to him) first started playing D&D in 2011 with the 4th edition. Would have been in his mid-20s at the time (a little older than most folks stumble into D&D). at the time of the podcast he was 32 years of age. 

And yet he wanted to learn 1E!  Mainly, he wanted to play all those classic 1st edition adventure modules using the actual system for which they'd been written. It was a gaming experiment...and a pretty cool idea...for a guy who'd never had the chance to play in the heyday of the 70s and 80s.

[ha! Funny thing...the television series Stranger Things came out in 2016. TMC makes reference to it in his final podcast...the serendipitous coincidence of people becoming interested in 1E at the same time]

And me? I feel like a heel listening to this. Because I was so NOT into AD&D in 2016 (remember that it wasn't till 2020 when I finally broke down and returned to 1E). If TMC started his podcast today, I could actually help him and provide him with good information and context for much of the weirdness of the game...but in 2016 it wasn't even on my radar. Hell, I probably would have advised him to play B/X if he'd asked me my opinion back then.

And this is SAD. I feel sad about that. Because when it came to trying to LEARN the game, TMC ended up tapping a bunch of different people for advice, most of whom had no good advice (or very little) to give. And some of whom actually gave him counterproductive stuff...the kind of stuff that, in my opinion, would result in a frustrating, crappy game and (even worse) probably just lead him back into the stifling WotC embrace of 5E.

Does that sound harsh? Uber-hyperbolic? Okay, maybe it is. But yesterday, in anticipation of this post, I was re-listening to Episode 1 and jotting down notes (mainly timestamps) and my son asked me what I was listening to (he was doing geometry homework at the kitchen counter at the time). I told him: I'm listening to an old podcast about a guy trying to learn AD&D and the questions he's asking from these guys who don't have much expertise with the system. Kid asked if he could listen, too (i.e. take off the headphones, papa). So I did. After a few minutes he said: "These guys have no idea what they're talking about! They're just yapping; they're not actually SAYING anything!"

Yeah. I know.

The time stamps I was making note of were questions that TMC was asking his guests...because I figured I'd list them here, on Ye Old Blog, and write out the answers I would have given him. But after seeing how aghast my son was, I decided to do something different: I forwarded the podcast to one of the questions, played it for my son, and then asked him what answer he would have given the interviewer (stopping the podcast so he didn't hear the guests' answers). My daughter wandered into the kitchen at about this time, and I ran her through the same exercise.

Here's the question (from 47:36 of the podcast):

"So, for myself or for anyone else who wants to learn AD&D what advice would you give? And with your advice I'd also ask for your two best house rules that you can remember."

Diego's answer: Advice? Be prepared. Know the adventure you're running. Know the rules. Two best house rules? #1: all dice rolls 'in the box.' #2: no PVP.

[we have a puzzle box lid that we roll all our dice in. Only dice that land in the box "count;" any die that bounces out of the box gets rerolled]

Sofia's answer: Be prepared for anything. Best house rules? No "goofing." No phones at the table.

My kids. So smart. Their answers were ten times better than the ones I would have given. 

SO...maybe I won't harangue and berate and belittle the poor guy for his near-decade old podcast. Hopefully, TMC has continued his 'experiment' and is still playing 1st edition today...hopefully, he's discovered for himself how and why the game works...I mean, nine years? That's a pretty good chunk of gaming under the belt. Plenty enough time to "figure things out."

Isn't it?

For me, I suppose I have a burning question of my own: if a person sits down to learn AD&D with a concept of role-playing shaped by latter day editions, are they going to be able to realign their expectations? Shift their paradigm, so to speak? For myself, who played plenty of "trad" RPGs in the 1990s, I can tell you there were subtle tweaks of reprogramming that needed to be rewired in my brain. You can see it in my older, dumber blog posts. Fortunately (for me), I already had a foundation of D&D play from my youth...I'd been witness to successful D&D play, and it was just a matter of digging out WHY it had been successful.

Which is easier said than done (no one really knew anything about this damn hobby when I was a kid). But after two decades (!!) of speculation on gaming and game design, I've got a pretty good handle on it. Maybe a smarter, wiser person than me could figure this out in half that time, without the foundational play experience? Maybe?

Ah, well.

I know...I know..that I have readers who are going to see this line of thought as incredibly presumptious and arrogant. Because, in a nutshell, I seem once again bent on dragging "edition wars" into this glorious hobby of ours, being judgmental and thick-headed about what makes "good play" or "bad" and yadda-yadda-yadda. Yeah, I know. "D&D has evolved," right? It ain't the same game it was, it serves different needs, the people playing it are different, etc., etc.  Okay, sure...I don't want to fight you folks (much) over the subject. I'm just a salty curmudgeon made saltier by the trends I see in the country I live in.

[and that's all I'll say about the election other than: boy, am I glad I live in Washington State!]

Anyway, I'm NOT (really) trying to come down hard and "judge-y" on people who play D&D differently from me. My frustration...which I feel the need to express...is that there are people out there, who might want to play D&D the way that I do...and who could!...if they only could get the few, simple answers they need. There ARE simple answers! Not easy ones, perhaps, but simple. There is a roadmap to (what I call) "solid D&D play." But getting it into the hands of the right people at the right time (2016! 2016!) is a tough ask.

SO...if you're a buddy of TMC, or happen to have run into him or gamed with him at GaryCon, give him a shout out from me. Tell him there are people who have only just discovered his stuff and are curious to know how it's all worked out for him in the intervening years. We'd like to hear more about his travails with AD&D 1E, and see how much (if any) they mirror our own. Tell him, the system is still being played by folks...many folks...around the world. 

Just let him know. And happy Thursday folks.

; )

[posted Friday because my Thursdays always seem to bog down. Darn it!]

Why D&D Works

I had an epiphany Saturday night, something I'd been struggling with and considering for years: why does D&D work, i.e why does it have staying power as a role-playing game, when so many other RPGs do not?  What is it that sets D&D apart from all other systems, genres, and competitors?

Saturday, while walking to the store to pick up some beer, it came to me: raise dead. 

Now, to be clear, there are a lot of reasons why D&D works...and works really well...for long-term (campaign) play. The driving force of the advancement mechanics (the x.p./leveling "carrot"). The plethora of challenges that scale from low levels to high. The micro-/macro- scale of the setting (i.e. the premise of exploring closed "dungeon" sites, and the endless possibility of exploring a whole world or different dimensions/planes). 

But all these things can be (and are) replicated/implemented in other genres of games: lots of games have "levels" and/or points-driven systems. Lots of of genres feature "adventure sites" for drilled-down exploration. Most RPGs present a scale of challenges from the beginning stages until the later.  Many, many games have emulated these particular aspects found in D&D. 

However, while those things, when implemented, can add staying power (i.e. sustained interest/engagement with game play) in practice, I've never any of those games to last for longer than a few months...and generally not even that long. 

[cue all the folks who've been running 20+ year Traveller campaigns to pipe up]

Here's the thing: I think (I think) that unless you have some slavish devotion to a particular genre/setting IP (for example, the person who ONLY plays Star Wars, because they love-love-love Star Wars and would not play RPGs at all without system to allows them to live in the SW universe), for sustained engagement over time, the participants require two things:

1. a real, true challenge that tests them (no matter how poor the player, they become competent with enough hours logged), and
2. a "tangible" (I use this term VERY loosely) form of accomplishment/reward demonstrating their impact (i.e. there has to be something to show for the time spent).

And the area where D&D differs from pretty much EVERY GAME on the market (certainly every game I can think of...which is more than a few), is the presence of of game mechanics that allow dead/destroyed characters to return to the game without breaking the verisimilitude of an escapist (fantasy) game. This is not "plot armor" for characters; instead magic like raise dead, reincarnate, resurrection, and wish are all baked into the system...these spells are a hard-wired part of the game's setting.

So what does this mean? Why is it important?

Well, for one thing, it means a DM can push the players as hard as he/she feels is appropriate for their capabilities without fear that beloved characters might be killed derailing years of work and investment. See, I readily acknowledge that players develop attachments to characters over long periods of consistent play...and not just attachments to their own characters...and DMs are not immune to this effect either. You work a character from 1st level up to 5th or 8th or 10th+ level, and the character takes on the same status in the minds of the participants as a major character in a favorite television serial.

It happens. It's not about creating a nifty "backstory" for the character, or developing a PC's "personality." It's about actual play, over time. Such characters matter to players.

And D&D provides means of bringing them back to life. The D&D world is a magical world...by definition and by design...that presumes souls (and spirits, yes, I see you DDG) do not immediately depart to their eternal reward upon expiration of the physical body. Players know this going in to the game. No, it's not necessarily easy (nor cheap) to do so, but there is always room for an Orpheus like quest. I've seen it happen...more than once in more than one campaign.

And so, because of this possibility, DMs can push the players hard. The kid gloves can come off. The DM is free to create dangerous scenarios, and run those scenarios by the rules, letting the dice fall as they may, and allowing the players to suffer and strive and triumph and fail on the basis of their own abilities and their own luck. Without the need for plot armor immunity, "death saves," or comic book style "ret-cons." Real Play; Real Stakes. Death on the line. 

Which, by the by, makes the experience of playing D&D all the more visceral...all the more adrenaline-pumping...for the people sitting around the table. Cheers and groans and fear and real tension. And, upon success, real feelings of achievement. The kind of roulette spins that breed gambling addicts...which is why people who enjoy D&D play, will continue to love and enjoy it. 

It's not an interest in improv that keeps them riveted.

So, yeah, this is the difference between D&D and (pretty much) every other RPG on the market. Superheroes, space opera, horror, espionage...none of them offer both the hard challenge of D&D, and the setting ingrained "get out of jail free" cards that take the sting out of loss. Of course, the D&D game has more wonderful things than just the magic of raise dead (including asymmetrical game play, a reward system that encourages action and cooperation, etc.), but this is the thing that, I believe, is UNIQUE to Dungeons & Dragons, and it facilitates long-term buy-in and investment which opens the potential to see how a campaign can unfold...in all its glory.

Happy Monday, folks. 

: )

[and, if you're an American, please don't forget to exercise your right as a citizen and VOTE]

The European OSR: Tourney

Happy All Saints Day! Time for another Friday morning blog post to read as you recover from your candy and booze hangovers!  Had a frightfully good Halloween myself (okay, sorry, bad pun).

As I mentioned in my original post of this series, even though I couldn't get over to Cauldron this year, I provided them with "tournament adventure" to run. Since I've fielded several questions about this the last few days, I figured a blog post might be the best way to disseminate information.

SO...y'all have heard of OSRIC, right? For those who haven't, OSRIC was one of the first D&D retro-clones published...in fact, I believe it was The First retro-clone published (unless you want to count HackMaster).  OSRIC is a clone of 1st edition AD&D; originally compiled by an attorney with the free time and passion for the project, its goal was to provide a framework through which hobbyists could write 1st edition adventures ("written for OSRIC") without getting C&D letters.

[if any of that info is incorrect, please feel free to ream me in the comments]

Anyway, the folks behind OSRIC are working on releasing a NEW edition of OSRIC; cleaned up, clearer, better usability, etc. While I don't see any news about this on their web site, this isn't some big secret: it's been a topic of conversation on several discords I read, and there have been forum announcements about it. The kickstarter hasn't launched yet, but I know it's in the works.

What might be a secret (apologies for the spoiler) is that, some months back, several folks were asked to help with the KS by writing adventures...presumably for 'stretch goals' or the like. I was one of the people invited to participate, and I offered to do "something with pirates and saints' relics," this idea rising from the world/setting concept presented.

Enter my adventure: Children of the Sea. Here's the blurb from the intro:

A holy relic has been stolen, and the Church of Sacramental Bliss has offered a substantial reward to anyone that can recover it. Careful investigation has revealed the lair of the pirates holding the blessed item: an abandoned temple on a small, craggy island. Can brave adventurers recover the relic before someone else claims the prize?

That was written in early October; I can see from my laptop that I created the document that would become Children of the Sea on September 30th (for the interested, the maps were created October 4th). 

But I'd had several months to ponder the project: I was first contacted about penning an adventure in May...but summers are busy 'round these parts (I told them it would be tough for me to get it to them by August but November/December wouldn't be an issue). It would sit percolating on the mental 'back burner' for a while...

However, in July the fam and I travelled to Europe and I had a chance to meet up with Prince of Nothing in Amsterdam (that will be the subject of a later post...). Even by then I'd started thinking about offering "something" to the Cauldron people...some way to 'keep my hand in,' even if I couldn't make it to Germany. When I broached the idea of an adventure to Prince, he suggested I just take the idea direct to Settembrini (the main con organizer), whom we'd both met and knew to be an amiable guy.

So I did...in September. As I said, summers are busy times for us and the start of the school year ain't anything close to a "slowdown" in the action. On September 16th I mustered the courage to send an email, writing:

"While I won't be at Cauldron this year, I'd like to offer a new adventure that can be run at the convention. Similar to the old tournament modules of GenCon's yesteryear, this would be a short 1E module, fleshed and prepped, that willing DMs could run and (hopefully) help fill out your event schedule. I'll include pre-gens, etc. to make the thing as easy to "read and run" as possible, and it will be of suitable length for a 4 hour time slot. 

"My thought is that (if several DMs were willing to run the adventure) such a thing could be a shared "touchstone" for Con-goers."

However, I did not start writing (being busy and then suffering a bout of Covid) and, instead, waited for a very busy man to get back in touch with me. Which he did on the 28th. Buoyed by this affirmation,  I set to work and had the whole thing out the door by October 5th.

Cauldron is a fairly small convention..."cozy" is the word that comes to mind. Some 54 (55?) people live, eat, and game together in a German manor house over a long weekend; in 2024 folks arrived Thursday afternoon and departed Sunday morning. Games are played in four hour blocks from 9am till...well, till whenever people decide to sleep...with meal breaks in-between. Seven "official" gaming blocks were assigned Thursday through Saturday, with Sunday being reserved for brunch, awards, packing up, etc.

Children of the Sea was run by six different DMs for 43 total players, providing a shared gaming experience for 90% of Cauldron participants. Better than I'd hoped for when I first had the idea.

I don't know if GenCon still runs tournament adventures. But I know they used to, and several adventure modules rightly called "classics" started their lives as tournament scenarios. We laud those old adventures because they are so ubiquitous...so many people have played them over the years, the S-series, the G-series, the C-series. That shared experience is the thing that keeps them in our memories, more than whether or not they are exceptionally written and/or designed. So many of us can crow about how we dealt with the giants or bitch about getting murdered in a Tomb of Horrors trap or whatever. Common war stories...THAT is what we get from these things. Like the way I've seen war veterans from different social classes and different ethnic backgrounds still bond with each other. 

Yeah, it's fun to have a D&D "competition," but the tournament exercise also strengthens the community.

Or so it seems to me.

Anyway. Much fun was had by all. Certificates for winning play groups (and runners up) were given out. One group's score sheet was misplaced and was later found to have actually had the most measurable success of all (they will be acknowledged in the published version of the adventure). From all the reports I've received and read on-line, it was a good experience with all groups managing to "win" the scenario to one degree or another and with only a fifth of the players being killed or "transformed without their consent." 

The Cauldron people have decided to make it an annual con event: the "Blackrazor Cup." Named for the iconic AD&D sword, not for me (the "Becker Cup?" Hell no...hard pass on that!). It will not, of course, always be an adventure penned by myself (though I am already thinking of what I might write for next year), but it will...I hope!...always be done in a similar spirit: providing a shared gaming experience where teamwork and cooperation and ingenuity are needed to overcome challenges and obtain great reward.

As for the adventure? I am currently in the process of polishing the thing for the OSRIC release, incorporating the feedback I received from both players and DMs alike...that's a lot of playtesting that got done in Germany!  My own gaming group didn't have a chance to play it till this week (Wednesday afternoon). We ran Children of the Sea exactly as written for the tournament, including drawing our six PCs from the tournament pre-gens, and setting a time limit of four hours.

The result was a TPK with 105 minutes still left on the timer. But I'm a pretty ruthless DM.

; )

[the kids still had a blast]

Happy Friday, folks!

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.

: )