O is for Originality

[over the course of the month of April, my plan was to post a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. While I was unable to complete the project on time, I find I still have things to say. Our topic in question is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

O is for Originality...something that is overrated within the so-called "Old School" community.

Not that this series is meant to slam the (mostly commercial) venture that is the OSR these days. But many of the new DMs coming to the AD&D game these days...or even old DMs returning to AD&D after decades of hiatus...are doing so by way of the Old School Revival that's rumbled along these last 17+ years. And in the commercial offerings that carry the "OSR" branding...specifically the for-purchase, pre-written adventure modules (of the kind that new and/or rusty DMs lean on to both inspire themselves and polish their chops), you find a particular type of pathology on display: the urgent need to add "original content" that never was to their offerings.

As if the game didn't offer enough content already.

I write quite a lot of adventures for use at my own table (both for my home campaign and for gaming conventions I attend). And when it comes to designing adventures, especially for convention play, I do not include "original content;" that is, I do not create "new, original" monsters, or magic items, or spells. Oh, you'll see some adventures I've penned for various writing contests that include one or two of these things (because they are elements of the contest), but these adventures don't see actual running at my table except when/if "play-testing." For my own campaign...and when demonstrating AD&D at cons...my adventures don't include anything you wouldn't normally find in the books...for a number of reasons:

1. The content already included in the books is (for the most part) tried and true and already tested within and against the (long-tested) rules of the game.
2. There is more content in the books than I have ever used in totality...which is to say, I've yet to use EVERY monster, or EVERY magic item, or EVERY magic spell over my 40+ years of gaming.
3. For purposes of playing (and "mastering") a game, players need a consistent structure within which to learn and hone their skills, not a rug that gets pulled out from under them with every new dungeon. As I wrote earlier, I am all for metagaming as it IMPROVES player engagement.

Thus, I have no need or desire for adding "original content" to my games...in fact (as per reason #3), I find original content can be detrimental to one's campaign if used in a less-than-judicious fashion.

And it's really not needed! Again, I will make use of a metaphor suggested to me by a DM of far more experience and wisdom than myself: AD&D can be compared to a piano. Consider the ubiquitous piano with its 88 keys...the industry "standard" since 1890. How many people have studied and learned and composed music on a piano over the years, challenging themselves and entertaining others? And how many of them have attempted to add "more keys" to the piano to make the thing "more original?" How many have said, man, these 88 keys aren't enough...there's just not enough sound here to make a decent song!

The idea is ridiculous, as anyone with the slightest  passing interest in music might tell you. And, yet, how many DMs are unsatisfied with the content of the core D&D books? How many have said that the 350+ monsters in the Monster Manual or the 300+ magic items in the Dungeon Masters Guide or the 400+ spells in the Players Handbook are insufficient for their crafting of adventures? Are you kidding me?

There is a TON you can do with the "limited" amount of content in the books: writing an adventure is much like composing a piece of music on a piano. And just as a piece of piano music can be played differently by different musicians (softly, loudly, quickly, slowly, jazzy, or arranged with other instruments, or whatever), a single adventure can be "interpreted" differently by different DMs...or run differently by the same DM on different occasions depending on the players involved.

Orcs aren't "boring." YOU are boring. What is needed is NUANCE, not novelty. Situationally, there are as many different ways to use orcs in your game as there are to use humans...these are intelligent (if imaginary) creatures after all. Consider all the way humans can differ...not just in form or function, but culturally.  I know that many of my fellow American look at all Latin American people as one big mass of brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people (I know this as I was once one of those Americans) but it is so, so not the case. Even if you ignore the individual differences of individual Mexicans (for example), Mexicans are VERY different from Ecuadorians who are VERY different from Panamanians who are VERY different from Paraguayans who are VERY different from Brazilians who are VERY different from Argentinians or Chileans, etc., etc.. In fact, they are SO DIFFERENT from each other, that unless their country is right next to another they tend to know NOTHING about the differences they have...yeah they know the people there speak Spanish (and, perhaps, have a decent soccer team) but they are often completely ignorant when it comes to someone else's history, politics, customs, food, etc.

It's like the way MUCH of the western world thinks of Africa as one big, homogenous country with border lines drawn on it. There are THOUSANDS of different ethnic identities in Africa and wildly differing genetic diversity even amongst people who share the same color of skin. Would a westerner consider all white people to be one big group? Is a Dutchman really the same as a Sicilian? My Basque friends from Bilbao certainly don't consider themselves "Spanish" in any way, shape, or form. "Your Catalan is getting quite good" they tell me (in English). 

As an American I know there are huge differences of culture between our 50 States. Yes, there are plenty of similarities, but a Washingtonian is a LOT different from a Hawaiian or a Georgian or a New Yorker or a Texan. It's not just politics that divides my country: we are (and always have been) separated by regional and cultural identity, even if we've been united (for most of our history) by some rather singular and lofty ideals that...once upon a time...we all agreed on. But are we different? Do we vary? Hell yes! Even within my own State of Washington, there is a vast difference between the "island folk" of the San Juans and the hard drinking/snorting fisher folk and lumberjacks of the Olympic Peninsula and the multi-generational farmers of the Palouse and the military folks in Everett and the very complicated metro area that is Seattle. Seattle, itself, is large enough that different neighborhoods have their own cultural identity...we're not all elitist tech-savvy "Lib-tards." Far from it! I've lived here since I was born (in '73) and MOST of that time, Seattle was pretty darn "working class" and that's how a lot of us "long timers" still see ourselves. Besides, everyone knows the elitist, tech-money d-bags live in Bellevue.

[haha. I joke. Bellevue is full of wealthy Asians, duh]

The POINT is, just saying an orc is a 1 HD antagonist and that we need a blue-skinned version that explodes when you hit it or one that has feathered wings or an orc that shoots lasers from its eyes in order to "spice things up" is simply showing a profound LACK of imagination. And it's short-changing both your players (who are trying to master the system...something they can only do when there is consistency of application) and yourself (as a designer and Dungeon Master).  What? Are you afraid that if you start "humanizing" orcs (or goblins or lizard folk or giants, etc.) by giving them nuance and ethnical variety that you're going to somehow turn them into something the players don't want to kill and then there goes the game? Have you not noticed how many different motivations, excuses, and justifications humans have found to kill each other over the centuries? My cup runneth over!

Yes, I am well familiar with the classic TSR modules of early days of AD&D and how the MAJORITY of them (pre-'85, i.e. "the good years") would include a new monster or two. I would just point out the following for consideration: A) you almost never see new magic items or spells, things which (in my estimation) have the highest potential for unbalancing or "breaking" the game, B) many times these new monsters are unique encounters and/or thematically linked to the adventure (i.e. not likely to show up elsewhere in a campaign), C) compared to the MAJORITY of the monsters in a 30-60+ encounter area, one or two new critters are a pittance, and D) you generally do NOT see these shenanigans in adventures designed for introductory, low-level play (no new monsters in B1, B2, N1, N2, etc.). Players have to learn the ropes before you start serving up curve balls!

SO...to bring this entry to a summation and close: it is NOT a mark of "creativity" or "good Dungeon Mastery" to be adding new, unique content to your game. Anyone can do that; the Fiend Folio is an entire book filled with new creatures created by a wide swath of designers (more than 70). Pursuing "originality" (in terms of content) as a goal in and of itself isn't the best use of your time and energy as an adventure designer. In my estimation, you'll get far more value out of finding ways to use that which is already present in ways that are unusual, challenging, surprising, and in ways both deeper and more nuanced. Engage your players through good system use, rather than novelty. 

AD&D campaigns can last a long time and you can get a lot of mileage out of it as written. However, when it comes to the vehicle's actual components, there's still a lot of tread left on the tires; no need to change them out so soon!

; )