Assumption #1: the game SCALES:
When you pick up an adventure module that says its written for PCs of "6th-8th (or whatever) level," you can bet that it has challenges and rewards suitable for characters of that level range...at least, if the designer is worth a damn. A bulette is not an encounter for low level characters...neither is a mind flayer. Likewise, if an adventure is written for 10th level characters, the only orcs are going to be encountered in staggeringly huge numbers and are led by real hard cases: powerful warlords, fiendish sorcerers, etc.
Now, of course, by "encounter" I mean combat encounter. It's perfectly acceptable to place (for example) a high level Druid in a low level adventure (N1: The Forest Oracle) assuming the party is not so stupid as to pick a fight with the guy. Likewise, it's acceptable to have individual weaklings pop up in a mid-high level adventure if they are simply there for information purposes and/or (sigh) "comic relief" (see gully dwarves in DL1: Dragons of Despair).
IN GENERAL, when DMs write adventures for their group, they should be keeping these scales in mind. The DMG encounter tables gives a good baseline for a standard range of encounters for PCs of a particular level, and the later monster books (the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II) list "LEVEL" for each of their entries. Make use of these resources.
As for treasure...well, I've already discussed its importance (and the importance of stocking appropriately) on upteen numerous occasions. No need to rehash that all here.
Assumption #2: you need a TEAM:
You can play AD&D as a 1-v-1 game (I've done it...as both a DM and as a player); heck, you can even play the game SOLO using the random dungeon generation tables from the DMG. But the scope of play, even with allied NPCs is going to be extremely limited without additional players. The game assumes you have a party of adventurers...more bodies to give (and receive) blows from opponents, more shoulders to carry bags of treasure recovered from the dungeon (or haul fallen companions). The monster scale (i.e. difficulty to dungeon level) is based on a GROUP of characters not a single PC.
Likewise, because of asymmetric skill sets, it is assumed that this team is going to be a mixed bag of character types. Just like a sports team needs different players with different talents playing different positions, the adventuring party NEEDS a mix of skills: fighting prowess, magic, healing, and thieving. Not only that, it helps to have redundancy...to have more than one type of teammate to fill positions when one individual is downed. I still remember when one of my groups abandoned an entire three-level necropolis I'd designed for them after their only cleric got killed in one of the first couple encounters...a wise choice on their part (given the sheer number of undead) but something that could have been offset with more than one cleric in the group.
[to be fair, we were playing B/X at the time and just creating a new cleric would not have proven helpful given the relative worthlessness of the 1st level cleric in B/X]
It's the best reason to include multi-class characters: they add skills and redundancy to an existing party, filling holes. For players who play solo, multi-class is the only viable way to go (my days of solo campaigning were always with a bard character).
Assumption #3: the RULES that exist are IMPORTANT
Although I'll add the caveat that I'm only referring to rules given in the first three books (the Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide). These books codified YEARS of play-testing, and are not just thrown in for shits-and-giggles. The AD&D core books were purposefully designed and built upon each other, each book adding its own adjustments to the game. Where concepts were considered "optional," they are usually labeled as such...where there is room for elaboration of a concept, this is often explicit in the text.
Some rules seem non-sensical until used in play. Some rules work on unstated assumptions of "common sense" that may not be readily apparent. Some rules are what they are because they facilitate the GAME that is being played, even if they don't seem to model a particular reality. The game has its own "reality" (as all games do), and within the game's reality the rules and procedures are the "natural laws" of that reality...as important to AD&D as gravity is to real world humans. They are not to be ignored or discarded willy-nilly.
Assumption #4: the game is about ADVENTURERS
When you sit down to play AD&D, the players should understand that in this game they are fortune-seeking adventurers. NOT (necessarily) "scurrilous rogues" but treasure hunters nonetheless. Even the paladins and rangers, heroic paragons of good and virtue, are there to earn a buck. That is what they do; that is their job.
Why is the paladin digging around in subterranean ruins instead of defending a village or holy temple from (potential) danger and depredation? The same reason the adventuring cleric is out in the wilderness rather than home 'minding the flock.' These are adventurers, taking wealth from the wicked for a just cause (i.e. the enrichment of the righteous who need funds to stave off evil). Whether you buy such justifications of murder and robbery, in the minds of the characters (i.e. in the paradigm of the game and its reality) it is clear that THEY buy it...and the gods who give them their holy powers do as well.
[there are a LOT of things in the game that are "unreal:" goblins, dragons, magic spells. A universe that rewards the tomb robber is no more "unreal" than anything else in the game]
Adventurers can accomplish their objective (acquisition of treasure) through guile, diplomacy, or force of arms (including magic), but usually "force of arms" is going to be the default...which is why the game includes so many rules for the adjudication of combat encounters.
Assumption #5: the DM is IMPARTIAL to the results
For AD&D to function, the Dungeon Master cannot have attachments to expected outcomes...it is assumed that the DM gets their "jollies" from the process of creation. That is, the DM relishes their role of "playing God" (building a world, designing dungeons, imagining situations and scenarios) and is less concerned with whether or not their creations are demolished by the players or do the demolishing. The DM's job is not to make sure a game ends in "victory" or "defeat" but whether or not it continues...because continuing allows the DM to continue the play of creation.
Each adventure, each "dungeon" built and/or run by the DM is thus a TEST, a means for the DM to evaluate their own creativity. Was this adventure too difficult? Was it too easy? Were the players engaged with the game at the table such that they enjoyed themselves and want to come back the next week?
THESE questions are the ones that matter. And for those questions to be answered truthfully and objectively, the DM needs to remove themselves from any expectation of what the results might be; the DM must be able to view the game being played objectively in order to improve their craft. Because it is only through a constant refinement and improvement that players can remain indefinitely engaged. And since JOY is found in making memories of good times with other people, the creation process is only ultimately satisfying when it can be shared.
Thoughts of the day.
: )
No comments:
Post a Comment