Justification

Yesterday, the Seattle Mariners won again and got within half a game of a playoff spot...a playoff spot that has eluded them for two decades. They are currently vying for one of two open "wild card" spots along with Toronto, Boston, and the Yankees. Those teams have respective run differentials of +167, +72, and +49, a number that means how many more runs have they scored over their opponents for the season. The Mariners? Their run differential is -50. Throw out Monday's 14-4 win over Oakland and they'd be -60. Generally speaking, they haven't won games by blowing out other teams...the M's don't have the Big Bat offense other teams have, and their starting pitchers have been UGly. They've just been a scrappy, never-say-die team that's managed to gut out a bunch of 1 and 2 run games with clutch hitting, lights out bullpen, good defense, and inexplicable lucky breaks.

It's ridiculous. I'm still wearing my Mariners ball cap, and with four games to go in the season. Still not quite buying in...but I am watching. The kids and stayed up way past bedtime last night.

The school soccer team I'm coaching is struggling. We've been blown out and blown out and blown out, and unlike the M's, we don't get a 162 game schedule. Although we are playing in the 5th grade boys league, almost half our team are 4th graders. Only five of our 15 players have played together. Only a couple kids played any type of soccer last year (when the schools were closed for the pandemic), and for several kids this is their first time EVER playing soccer. Every team we've played against has been bigger, stronger, and faster than us...many have had multiple kids known to play on "select" or "premier" teams. 

This weekend, our best player (my son) has a schedule conflict: his premier team is playing at the same time on the east side of the water. While my plan was to have him go to that while I coach the school team, he has asked if he can skip his premier game in order to play with our band of misfits. See, he's scrappy, too. And even as he gets frustrated with the school's team to execute even simple concepts (he refers to them as a "dumpster fire"), even though there's less than half a dozen kids on our team that he's even known, and only three that he'd really call "friends"...he feels a duty, a responsibility to helping them out. He knows what he means to their team and he doesn't want to give up on them, let them down, pick your pithy phrase to reflect "loyalty" and an unwillingness to quit.

The other day, Havard was reflecting on the "edition wars," the pointlessness of...and the wasted time spent...bashing other folk's preferred versions of the Dungeons & Dragons game. In his view, those who engaged in such grumpy bickering should look at their actions with embarrassment. Instead of "focusing on the negativity and the things that divide us," Havard urges us to...um...have fun experiences together? Remember that "we have a hobby that we love?" Something?

I guess he's not urging us to do anything except to NOT be negative. To be open-minded about other's preferred editions and welcoming to their preferred style of play. And (if I'm inferring correctly) to be glad and grateful that this is growing the hobby (i.e. getting more players into it).

So, okay...I have a different take on the "edition wars" from Havard.  For one thing, if it is (or ever was) a "war" it's one that my side LOST a long, long time ago. Circa 1986. The "war," if one would call it that, was over about the time Lorraine Williams took over TSR and changed its focus from creating games to publishing books. When 2nd edition AD&D was published in 1989, replacing Gygax's byline with Zeb Cook's, the war was officially, completely lost.

Folks like me have just been fighting guerrilla actions since then. 

My bitching-and-moaning about new style players and my criticisms of 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th edition D&D isn't a "war." Really. It is an attempt to keep alive an older style of the game that some folks might prefer to be relegated to the trash bin. Because it's one thing to say:

Hey, there are older editions of D&D and, here, you can buy copies of it on eBay, or PDFs from DriveThru and isn't that an interesting curiosity / piece of history? You can really see the war gaming roots and how funny, strange that style of play once was (not to mention how misogynistic, racist, and unenlightened the gaming community might have once been)....

And it's quite another thing to say:

Hey, there was this game that was new in the 1970s that blew people's minds and that was really fun to play, so much that it grew into a phenomenon that had profound effects on games and culture, and while it changed substantially some fifteen years after it's creation, maybe there's something to its original game play that's still fun and profound and exciting and worth playing, not just watching as a live-streamed "show."

See, I'm scrappy, too. And while I'm smart enough to know the "war" has been lost and times have changed, and more people would rather be shown or informed by others than take the time to educate themselves (by reading books, for example)...while I'm smart enough to see "times have changed" I'm stubborn enough and squeaky enough to keep shouting "hey, but don't forget..." 

And sometimes I say (or write) things in an incendiary way in order to get forgetful folks' attention.

Last week I wrote a post that declared there is only one, true edition of Dungeons & Dragons, and that the particular edition in question was Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, the first edition, penned/compiled by Mr. Gary Gygax. This...predictably...ruffled feathers, but as the point of my post wasn't about justifying the position, I didn't take the time to elaborate on my statement. 

Here, then, is the elaborate justification; we'll try to take this in order:

OD&D (the original Little Brown Books) was a proto-version of Dungeons & Dragons. It is not and was not "complete," crystalized, or a fully formed vision of game design. Its own creators (Gygax and Arneson) did not agree on how it was to be played, and had wildly divergent styles. Until it ceased being published, it was in a constant state of evolution, each new supplement adding or changing the original rules. Other gamers ended up creating their own versions and variant designs: Warlock, Arduin, Tunnels & Trolls, etc. It is amorphous. It is imaginative. It is wonderful...but it is not a single, concrete game. It cannot function without addition. AS A GAME (not "as a concept" or "in spirit") it is not "true;" in many ways, the LBBs themselves were supplementary material for the Chainmail rules that only (later) evolved into a distinct form of play.

Basic (Holmes edition) D&D was designed to be introductory, specifically introductory, to the game of Dungeons & Dragons, and is thus far from complete. It draws parts from OD&D, the first supplement, The Strategic Review, Chainmail, and the Warlock variant. Its rules diverge from the AD&D game it was written to introduce and is not compatible with that, nor with "official" OD&D rules.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (first edition): this is the TRUE version of D&D. It took what had come before then adjusted, edited, and codified it into a singular vision of game play with rules covering every anticipated potentiality of game play. Note: not "every potentiality," just what was judged as being part of the scope of game play. Folks interested in "coloring outside the lines" would certainly be allowed to do so (outside of official, sanctioned tournament play), but were adjudged to be be playing something other than "standard" (i.e. "true") Dungeons & Dragons.

B/X(Moldvay/Cook/Marsh) D&D: another introductory game; it is a streamlined version of OD&D + Supplement I that leaves out some of the stickier complexities (race/class separation, weapon adjustments, AD&D ability score modifiers, 9-point alignment) in favor of simplicity. The best introduction to "true" D&D and nearly fully compatible with AD&D...so much so that many folks in the 1980s were able to combine the two editions into a single mishmash with varied results. It sacrifices complexity and nuance for accessibility and ease of play.

BECMI (Mentzer) D&D: yet another revision of the introductory game; not only was it written for an even younger audience (complete with solo tutorial adventures), but it was written in such a way as to NOT include monsters, spells, and content specifically designed/developed for Advanced D&D. It became its own separate line of play, though again designed for simplicity, lacking the complexity, nuance, and interlocking of systems found in AD&D. While it is designed as a "complete" line (taking player characters from level 1 all the way to immortality through discreet rule systems) it deviates far from the singular vision found in "true" version of the game. Played straight, BECMI D&D does not call to mind the fantasy literature or pulp fiction that inspired the original game; instead, every player is on a quest for legendary power and (eventual) godhood. It is staid and mechanical, less organic, and in an effort to be more "family friendly" (or less controversial) has lost some of its original character...and thus some of its potential game play. The original game may have accounted good stronger than evil, but evil (as a player choice) was still a possibility. That possibility was all but excised in the presentation of BECMI.

In terms of the Seven Elements identified for "true" D&D game play, it begins to fail on both the "magic is limited" and "economy is present" scale. BECMI D&D lacks the various checks-and-balances for both magic and wealth found in AD&D; as a consequence, long-term game play turns into something very different from "true" D&D (see the Principalities of Glantri and Thyatis/Alphatia gazetteers for examples). 

[just like to note that I spent a couple hours yesterday combing through some 100+ pages of Frank Mentzer interview notes to find his own preferred version of play. As of the early 2000s he was still running his home game with what he referred to as AD&D 1.5 (AD&D + the Unearthed Arcana) in combination with his own Immortal set rules. His reasons for including the UA was fairly simple: he'd compiled and edited much of the work himself and was quite satisfied with its usability in terms of the D&D game. He also did not favor the totally "humanocentric" vision that Gygax did, and so liked the extra power given to demihumans in the UA]

Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: while mechanically very similar to 1E, it lacks the original vision of the "true" game's designer (evidenced by many stylistic changes) and begins to fall down in both the "economy is present" and (mainly) the "cooperation is necessary" categories; the latter because the default reward (advancement) system of 2E has the character classes pursuing disparate goals from one another. The shift in tone for supplementary material (especially "module" adventures) starts to break the elements of "PCs are heroic" and "the Universe does care" as more and more railroad-y or excessively moralizing texts are published, forcing PCs into certain avenues of play.

Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons: moves farther from the game as originally designed, overemphasizing "violence is inherent" (through its reward system), breaking "cooperation is necessary" (by de-emphasizing asymmetry), and paying only lip service to "economy is present" with rule stipulated treasure/monetary amounts at every level for both PCs and NPCs. On the adventure front, more of the same trends as from the mid-1980s (see 2E above).

Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons: extreme over emphasis of "violence is inherent" coupled with extreme DE-emphasis of "magic is limited" and "economy is present." Interestingly, there is a return/resurgence of "cooperation is necessary" but NOT via asymmetry so much as specific "adventure roles" needing to be filled for successful endeavors...still this is more of an aside, and adventures can certainly be written for specific groups lacking particular role characters. The same issue with published adventures continue.

Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons: extreme de-emphasis of ALL elements EXCEPT "PCs are heroic" and a warped/twisted version of "the Universe does care" which does its best to coddle the players rather than challenge them in any meaningful form. Even the idea of "D&D is a game" (element #1) is de-emphasized, as the idea that D&D is an amusing pastime, performance/show, becomes ascendant and character advancement is no longer tied to character's pursuit of specific objectives but is instead linked to how well the players perform the story being told. The singular vision that once guided the GAME of Dungeons & Dragons has been cast aside for a "do anything you like" attitude...objectives of play, mechanics and rules, all are meant to be changed and discarded as whim (and "fun") dictates. The term "D&D" doesn't refer to a specific game but, rather, a particular brand/IP that has been purchased...ostensibly to be "played," but what that play looks like will vary from table to table.

"Sixth" Edition Dungeons & Dragons: are you serious?

Harsh, harsh words, Old Man (actually, I'm trying NOT to be harsh in this post but, whatever...). JB, you're telling folks there's only one way to have D&D fun, and if it's not the same way as yours, then they totally suck. 

No, I'm not.

At least up until 1985 or so (i.e. about when the "war" was lost), the D&D game still had a uniting, singular vision that people could fall back on REGARDLESS of the rule set that was being used at the table. That vision, clumsily stated in the original Advanced D&D game allowed all players, regardless of system, to get on the same page when it came to the question of "what is (D&D) game play all about?" Some folks didn't like the answer to that question, and handled their dislike in different ways (drifting the system, changing games, quitting the hobby, whatever). Some folks just took a break for ten or twenty or thirty years, either because they either A) didn't see the potential promise of game play or B) didn't feel the effort needed to reach that potential was justified, and they could get their "kicks" somewhere else. 

[you can count me as one of the latter folks who first kicked AD&D to the curb in exchange for other games (a LOT of other games) and then spent a decade plumbing B/X and finding its depth (as designed! and well designed!) to be less than satisfying]

But that singular vision, incorporating those seven elements (to a lesser or greater degree) was a unifying force and you can SEE that in, for example, Prince's recent "No ArtPunk" adventure design contest: adventures were written for AD&D, B/X, BECMI, OD&D, retro-clones, ACKS, etc. but all finding a way to create interesting "dungeon" adventures suitable for their particular systems. Dungeon crawling by itself is NOT indicative of "true" D&D play, but it IS an important portion of the game aspect of D&D...and recent adventure offerings (both 5E and "OSR") seem to have very...mmm..."strange" ideas of what such design entails.

The point being: *sigh* yes, you're still playing "D&D" even if you're not playing AD&D. But if you want to play the game in its "highest expression," you have to start with AD&D. Other versions...especially pre-1985...have similar guiding spirit/principals and (more usually) recognizable tropes. But you can't play post-1985 editions of D&D as they are designed and written in the same way that the game was originally set down and codified.  Sure, you can take a late edition version and twist it or tweak it or drift it or whatever...you could also just run GURPS or write your own damn game.

OR...you could play the TRUEST version ever written and just spend your free time designing a fine campaign that is supported by the rules.

That, I guess, is my "scrappy" message. If you've never tried it and you find "old" D&D objectionable for some reason (it was written by white American men for white American men, or it exhibits too many colonialist sensibilities, or whatever)...I get it, I sympathize, I understand. Try giving it a chance. Try giving the crazy-ass rules a chance. If you're an "OSR" aficionado who prefers something lighter, rules-wise and are turned off by the opaque, clunky writings of Gygax...I get it, I sympathize, I understand. Try giving it a chance. Try reading it and parsing it and running it.

If you've run or played AD&D before, and just can't understand why anyone would still want to play the game based on that particular antiquated/clunky version of the rules anymore (or for WHATEVER reason)...I get it, I sympathize, I understand. I do! Really! But did you really give it your best shot? How long ago was it that you tried running it? How have you grown/changed since then? I know technology has changed a lot since the 1970s...the ability to create easy-to-use spreadsheets and play aids is incredibly simple. And it makes it O-so-easy to run the crunchy bits with just a little time and energy.

Maybe...try it one more time?

All right, that's all I have time for today. Have to go pick up the kids from their (club) soccer practice. Which they are doing in the pouring rain. Like troopers.

Go Mariners. Keep proving me wrong.

: )

Seven Elements

As promised in my last post:

I realized my whole theme of "true D&D play" likely touched a nerve or two, and for that I apologize. I suppose I could have called it "advanced play" instead of "true" play...but what is "advanced" game play but the highest form of a particular game? You can play a simpler variety of MANY games...a fast version of Monopoly, for example, or a scaled back version of Axis & Allies. For a quick night's entertainment  - or as a tutorial for new players - that works fine and dandy. Dungeons & Dragons, as (perhaps) the greatest tabletop ever invented, can perform adequately for years even in a "basic" form (like B/X). But the game is given its highest expression in the form known as AD&D.

First edition only.

Here, then, are the seven elements of advanced ("true") D&D play, as I see them:

1. D&D is a game.
2. Cooperation is necessary.
3. Violence is inherent.
4. Magic is limited.
5. Economy is present.
6. PCs are heroic.
7. The Universe does care.

I've not listed the elements in alphabetical order, nor order of importance/priority, but only in the order I intend to discuss them. Regarding "importance," there could certainly be some debate, but ALL of these elements are essential to game play. And it is (partially? completely?) the presence of these elements that sets D&D play apart from other games, and that sets AD&D apart from other editions of the game.

Each element requires elaboration. Let's get down to it:

#1 Dungeons & Dragons is a game 

I can already hear the collective multitude shouting "duh" in chorus. But consider the many implications of this element. First off, games have RULES, and D&D is no different. Rules constrain the actions of both the players and referee (Dungeon Master, DM). Games have means of winning and losing, and of judging both. Death in D&D is one of several possible "failure states" of the game, though certainly not an insurmountable one (as raise dead, wishes, and divine intervention can all attest).

Constraints influence game play. There are limitations places on classes and races available and their use in combination; there are limitations placed on levels attainable (based on class/race combos) and on the capabilities of characters at various levels. These limitations are in place for reasons...reasons of shaping the scope and scale and direction of game play. Same with limitations of available spells, weapon selection, armor use, etc. 

Game rules are meant to be followed in the prescribed manner. When a situation presents itself for which a rule is not present, a rule must be formulated by the table. When a rule presents an inconsistency, the referee (DM) must make a ruling on the issue in order for game play to proceed. Players and referees have differing roles and responsibilities determined by the game rules. And as final arbiter of the rules presented, DMs must have a thorough knowledge of the game rules...DMing D&D in its advanced form is NOT for the faint of heart. 

People play games for many reasons, all linked to enjoyment (even if one simply means to challenge themselves, it is the challenge that is being enjoyed). When we play a game, we agree to abide by the rules...both those of the textual rulebook and those of etiquette, both of which may vary from game to game and from table to table. 

D&D is a game...all of the above applies to its play. It should also be noted that, because true D&D is a game, we can also signal what it is not. It is not a performing art. It is not improv theater. It is not a mechanism for constructing a story in the conventional sense (as one would find in a novel, film, or play, for example). Exploring the human psyche or condition is not an objective of play, and its design is not supportive of such. It is not sport. It is not a platform for addressing social inequities in a meaningful fashion. It is not a simulation of reality...though (as discussed below) some verisimilitude is to be desired.

#2 Cooperation is necessary

This element does not address the "social contract" of its participants (that's part of element #1) but rather the method of game play itself: D&D as a game of fantasy adventure is cooperative. It is meant to be played by groups of players, not single individuals, and even pairs (one DM, one player) will find the game decidedly rough without additional participants.

Players (that is, non-DM participants) play characters of asymmetrical capabilities. None of the various character types are created "equal," though all have niches in which they excel or (at least) perform admirably. However, even without a VARIETY of character types, sheer numbers of cooperative players can win the day where individuals or non-cooperating parties will fail miserably. 

Consider that a group of player characters (PCs) working in concert, act as a large pool of hit points..."sharing the pain" in a way that allows ALL (or most) to survive, while generating more actions and/or attacks. Fallen characters can be aided by their comrades (by being dragged to safety, healed, raised, etc.) and can do the same for others when the shoe is on the other foot (as it will, eventually, be). Of course, the old adage "two heads are better than one" is more than apt when it comes to the various riddles, challenges, and complications that face the average adventuring party...and some obstacles will be presented that simply cannot be circumvented without multiple PCs working together.

AD&D is designed in such a way that no single character type holds ALL the benefits and capabilities of effectiveness. The greatest paladin in the world can be brought down in a crush of goblins using the grappling rules. The most powerful archmage of the setting will need to sleep eventually. No character is an island in D&D, and the players that cooperate in the most efficient manner will, in the long-term, have the most sustained success.

#3 Violence is inherent

D&D is descended from war games and its design reflects the fact and the play assumptions of the genre. Each character encountered (player or non-) has a set of hit points that provides an exact amount of punishment that can be sustained before being removed...at least temporarily...from play. Huge swaths of the rules text are given over to weapons and armor, combat and battle, deadly conflicts of physical, psychic, magical, and (in the case of clerics) spiritual type. 

D&D is not a game of court intrigue and political machinations. It is not a game of back parlor deals, treaty negotiation, and real estate development. It is not a game of buying and selling commodities, arranging marriages, diplomatic complications, or the challenges faced by individuals fighting depression, ennui, or issues of self-esteem and self-worth. Any and all of these things MIGHT (or might not) appear in play...but they are neither the point of play, nor a priority of design.

The design of D&D reflects the intrinsic dangers of the world. Characters can die...or can be turned to stone, charmed, captured, level drained, etc. Generally speaking characters WILL die...often humorously or ignominiously. It is an expected part of game play, and should not prevent players from taking bold action. Played cooperatively (see #2) even death may be overcome in the D&D game...and it will be meted out in spades to the opponents and monsters that come into conflict with the PCs. The source material for the AD&D game (pulp fiction featuring face-punching protagonists) reflect the base assumptions of an adventure game, a game of violent action. While caution and intelligent choices are laudable, timidity and indecisiveness are not (and recklessness is a failure to play cooperatively).

The violence of D&D should be embraced by all at the table; managing the risk of threat to one's (imaginary) life and limb is one of the main components of the game.

#4 Magic is limited

D&D is a game and as such has rules which constrain the game. Magic is a major component of D&D and yet is very much a limited resource in the game. Spell-casting is grueling work for characters, requiring hours of (game) preparation just to have access to a handful of spells. Spells are limited by the need for verbal, somatic, and material components. Spells used are forgotten (until recovered through sleep, study, and prayer). There are no "at will" cantrips, laser eye beams (at least, not from PC casters), or spells that provide huge benefit at no cost. Even the mighty wish spell will age the caster several years (possibly killing the character through system shock).

The acquisition of spells in no mean feat. Magic-users may only add spells to their repertoire as they find them, and even those found may not be comprehended, depending on the character's intelligence. Clerics are limited in spells by the whims of their deity (and the deity's opinion of the cleric's piety) and, as with magic-users, the highest level spells are limited to character's of great wisdom. Of course, all spell-casters are limited by their level: power must be earned through bold endeavor.

Likewise, magical items must be earned by player characters; there are no "magic shops" and characters must brave dangers and dungeons to earn every single +1 weapon. Most enchanted items are limited in the true D&D game: many items have charges or are single-use in nature. Cursed items abound in every category, ensuring there is always risk involved in the use of any enchanted item. Many items require command words to access their abilities, and often magical items are saddled with alignment restrictions that can damage, destroy, or level drain would-be wielders of the wrong faction. Rare indeed are the entirely beneficial items, making them highly prized by all...such items tend to make their owners the targets of thieves, assassins, unscrupulous nobles, etc. 

PCs may construct their own magical items and research their own magical spells, but only at tremendous cost (in terms of time and money)...the process of doing so is never easy and success is never guaranteed and often entails its own adventure as enchanters must search out special materials, usually the organs and body parts of extremely deadly (and rare) monsters.

Flagrant use of magic in the D&D setting...towns lit with continual light, flying carpet travel services, etc.... is likely to bring unwanted and hostile attention on offenders. Magic is rare and wonderful in the true D&D game and is respected because of it. It should never be an answer to all problems, nor a replacement for the conveniences of modern day life; doing so renders D&D something other than an adventure game.

#5 Economy is present

That is to say: money matters. From the very beginning of character creation, players in a true D&D game are concerned with the matters of wealth and resources. A first level character only has a limited amount of starting capital with which to outfit themselves, and must choose wisely.

Acquisition of treasure thus becomes the primary concern for PCs. Ready cash is needed for a variety of expenses: food and adventuring equipment, armor and weapons, hirelings and their monetary needs. As characters advance, more money will be needed for training purposes, possibly for spell acquisition, tithing and guild fees, and (of course) magical aid in the form of raise dead (and other recovery) spells. Specialists will need to be contracted: sages for information, armorers for troops, engineers for the building of strongholds. And as characters reach the levels of domain ruler, even more wealth will be needed for expenditures on henchfolk and permanent investments (buildings, mills, bridges, fortresses, etc.). 

While this "bean counting" may seem cumbersome, it is absolutely essential to the game play of D&D as originally codified. Without an economy, without a need to spend, the desire to acquire treasure dissipates...and it is that need for treasure (for "money") that drives D&D game play. It is one of the objectives of game play that unites the disparate player characters, the thing that compels cooperation as much as survival instinct, because it is needed by every character type. Tying it to the reward structure of the game (where each gold piece of treasure = one experience point towards leveling) engenders the risk-reward assessment that is at the heart of true D&D game play. 

Resource management...supply, demand, the use of wealth, the logistics of encumbrance...these things are the core of D&D game play. What matter the Lich-Lord's army if you cannot feed your own? How can you hope to arrive at Smaug's lair or Mount Doom if you cannot afford enough food for both your mount and the pack animal that must carry it? Many are the D&D players that have complained that D&D isn't enough like The Lord of the Rings...have they read Tolkien's books? Challenges regarding food, water, and travel are rife throughout the series!

And the game's economy is tightly bound to resource management. Equipment and gear...even the magical stuff...is not "indestructible" in AD&D. The item saving throw matrix on page 80 of the DMG is proof enough that rough usage will quickly deplete the party's inventory. Making use of oil flasks as "fire bombs" is all well and good until you find yourself out of fuel for your lantern. And the limits of magic (see #4 above) means that the care and maintenance of mundane equipment is of utmost importance. Even that sword of "metal, hard" will break eventually, if struck with enough "normal blows;" hopefully, the character's adventures earn enough wealth to carry a backup weapon or two.

Without an economy, and an emphasis on wealth and resources, one cannot play D&D as designed. And the verisimilitude such games rules offer aids in both the immersion and engagement of game play.

#6 Player characters are heroes

"What?!" I hear the cries through the darkness of the internet. "Heroes?! That goes against every principal of 'old school' role-playing!" Mmm, mm, mm. Slow down folks and give me a chance to explain.

The player characters are the most important characters in the D&D game. They are charged with braving fantastical challenges and facing deadly perils. They are adventurers; they ARE heroes. Without player characters, there is no game. 

And they are heroic...favored by the gods. This is made clearly evident with the design choices of HIT POINTS and SAVING THROWS; such is explained at various points in the DMG. These avatars of the PCs are special...we (the game's participants, whether player or DM) are concerned with the actions they take. It matters to us whether they succeed or fail. With regard to that part of the game, they are most definitely the "stars" of the show.

This does not mean they won't fail or die or have their limbs cut off by a sword of sharpness. It doesn't mean they won't be captured and brutalized and they may well wind up starving to death in some lightless subterranean labyrinth, or bleeding out at the bottom of a pit trap. A character's DESTINY in D&D is not written in stone. Always remember, D&D is a game (see #1), not some sort of narrative structured story-telling device. PCs are heroes because of the ACTIONS they take, not because of the FATE they've been handed by an author. 

And as such, player characters should be respected. They should not have their roles as heroes usurped by NPCs of the DM's creation; they should not be upstaged by various narrative "cut-scenes." The action of the game should be focused squarely on the player characters and their intentions and desires...that is the design of the D&D game. NPCs (monstrous or otherwise) are a dime a dozen; they exist as obstacles and allies and sword fodder FOR THE PLAYER CHARACTERS. Only the PCs count as heroes in the D&D game. Their lives (and deaths) are, ultimately, the only ones that will matter to the game's participants. Ever.

#7 The Universe is a caring one

Building on #6, it is important to understand that the Dungeon Master (DM)...that ultimate creator of the D&D campaign...is human and cares about the players and their characters. I will state it is impossible to be wholly impartial as a referee...which is why we make use of rules and randomized fortune generators (i.e. dice) to ensure that we do not err too far to one side or another.

However, we care for our players (and their characters)...if we did not care, if they did not matter, we would not bother creating challenges for them to confront. We want them to be challenged...because we love the game and want to continue playing it, and the game will not hold the players' interest if we make the game too easy or too difficult. We (the DMs) want the players to be engaged with the game play....because that will hold their interest and allow us to continue playing; as I wrote in #6, there is no game without players. And remember #1: D&D is first and foremost a game.

DMs MUST care about the campaign (both the setting and its players), because if the DM does not then no one else will. For the game to reach its maximum potential, the Dungeon Master must be heavily invested. They must know the rules, they must create the world, they must build "dungeons" and scenarios and situations that will intrigue and delight their players. That means a lot of time, effort, and thoughtfulness being expended by the person who elects to play "Dungeon Master" to the table.

How can such a person NOT care what happens?

The game universe (i.e. the DM) of a "true" D&D game cares about the players because they must. Because it matters how much treasure is made available. It matters how much magic and resources the players are able to access. It matters how the challenges of the party intersect with imaginary world being created. It matters whether or not success or failure happens and what impact (if any) that will have on the development of the ongoing campaign and its "legacy."

In its advanced form, the D&D game is neither frivolous nor capricious; it is not thrown together thoughtlessly, nor is it run carelessly. There is too much to the game for the DM not to care. And for any particular game table, the DM is the embodiment of the game's universe.

Thus, the D&D Universe cares. That doesn't make it kindly, nor wrathful, nor malicious, nor generous....although, as a human being, DMs will exhibit all these emotions and more. However, the competent DM will not allow such feelings to unduly influence the play at the table, because (the rules being what they are) doing so has the potential of breaking the game. And the DM cares too much. 

How could they not?

Aaaaaaand...that's all I've got for today. Cheers!

: )

Classic Priming

It's been nearly a week since my last three posts, and I've been using my (little) free time since then to think about my "theme" and just exactly what I want to write. It's tough, because there's a lot going on in there "world" of D&D gaming.

Hold that thought.

First, let's start with someone else's blog. If you haven't read The Retired Adventurer's essay Six Cultures of Play, you really should. I've read it multiple times over the last couple months, trying to absorb it; yesterday, I listened to a podcast reading of the essay (while doing household chores), and feel like I've got an even better grasp of these concepts...trying to see how they fit with my own experiences AND those reports from others that I've read about. With regard to Dungeons & Dragons, two thoughts keep drumming in my brain when I consider the development/evolution of role-playing:

1. Is it too late to close the barn door?
2. Should I even be worried about the escaped horse?

I know several, very respectable minds who would say the answer to #2 is a definitive NO, and thus #1 isn't even worth bothering about. This is the mindset of, "hey, I have my game, I'll run it how I want, and everyone else can go to hell." Other, less respectable, minds feel the same way...or at least reach the same conclusion: "it is what it is," they say.

And, yes, there are folks who just want to find a way to make money off whichever way the wind happens to be blowing. A war profiteer can sell guns to both sides of a conflict, after all.

But I am a jackass. And I have made a bit of a rep for myself railing against (and failing to accept) just "what is." Shouting in the darkness is pretty much what I do...so let's fucking go!

In recent days, I have come to the conclusion that there is only ONE TRUE edition of Dungeons & Dragons. This is, of course, patently and provably false, as any gamer with half a brain can tell you: people of all stripes continue to play every edition (and variant) ever published (by my count: about 13) IN ADDITION TO two dozen or more various hacks, heartbreakers, retro-clones, and homages. Yes, I agree...I am an f'ing idiot to make such a statement.

There is only ONE TRUE (published) edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Yes, I suck and I'm wrong, and I can feel the rotten fruit and garbage folks are pelting me with, even as I write this. And the HATE...the venomous hatred that folks will have for hearing me say such a dastardly thing. Because I'm guessing a lot of folks (well, my readers anyway) know in their heart of hearts the truth (or suspect the truth) of my statement, and it won't necessarily sit well with them for a VARIETY of reasons. And the harder that sits with you, the more pushback and resentment and hatred I expect to receive. 

[maybe some puzzlement, too...but those folks have been puzzled throughout this series. I have an inkling of WHY that is, but I don't want to address it...not in this post, anyway]

So, go ahead, say it with me. You all know what the "one true edition" of D&D is, don't you? I don't even need to write it (though I will), because for anyone who's reading this blog post, there's probably a particular image of a particular edition that comes to mind when one hears the term "Dungeons & Dragons," a color illustration that (for whatever reason) is thoroughly branded in your brain in association with the game. Probably. I'd guess at least 90%. Even if the image has NOTHING to do with the edition (or game) that you currently play/run.

AD&D. The "first" edition. Gygax's opus. That's the one: the one true game. 

Not OD&D (all respect to Arneson's legacy and Rob Kuntz's opinion...yes, I've read your book). The original books were a proto-game, something in it's formative stages, an add-on to Chainmail, a rules-ifying of Braunstein. Not B/X (although that's still the best introduction to learning/teaching the game) nor any of the other "basic" versions. And definitely not Cook's cleaned-up 2E or any of the later, innovated versions. Certainly not the currently published 5E which (in my opinion) makes a mockery of earlier systems with its attempt to compromise on all fronts. 

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, that hoary, draconian, curmudgeonly trilogy of tomes (DMG, PHB, MM) crystalized the "system" first begun with three Little Brown Books...three books that were so woefully incomplete that they led to half a dozen supplementary volumes and countless variations of The Game across college campuses in the U.S. and military bases throughout the world. AD&D by itself...with no additional volumes necessary...was whole and complete. Everything else added later...the Fiend Folio, Deities & Demigods, Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, etc....were at best ICING and, at worse, blatant ca$h grabs. Whether you like them or not (I like several), ALL are superfluous to the game. Many do more to BREAK the game's function than actually aiding it.

*exhale*

It is not a perfect game...there are few (if any) games that ARE perfect. It has inconsistencies and missteps. Polymorphing undead. Alignment language. Sex-based limitations on ability scores. Color spray. Many examples abound...nearly all are eminently correctable without destroying functionality (i.e. without breaking the game). And while not perfect...and definitely a tad on the "complex" side...it is a wonderful game. Extremely playable. Incredibly enjoyable. My favorite game of all time, and one of the greatest games ever created.

And one of the most misunderstood.

And I'm not talking "misunderstood" because of inherent misogyny or colonialist attitudes or whatever. The misunderstanding I'm talking about is How To Play The Game and What The Game Is About...basic foundational pieces of game play, in other words. Part of this is due to ineptitude on the part of the author (Gygax). Part of this is due to a grandfathered community of OD&D gamers already playing with wide variation prior to AD&D's publication. Part of this is due to new entrants to the hobby, coming in with incoherent ideas of what D&D play IS and not being disabused of their notions by a publishing company (under ANY banner or ownership group) whose aim has been and continues to be turn a profit from this "thing" (Dungeons & Dragons) that we don't quite understand ourselves. 

John Bell's essay (cited at the beginning of this post) fails to address it within any single one of his "six cultures of play," but of the six it is the Classic model that comes closest, specifically with this line:

The point of playing the game in classic play is not to tell a story (tho' it's fine if you do), but rather the focus of play is coping with challenges and threats that smoothly escalate in scope and power as the PCs rise in level.

[emphasis added by me, as usual]

Bell may have been more accurate in stating that "classic" play is not meant to "tell a story" in the same way as a trad, neo-trad, or "story gamer" tells a story, but the point of play is NOT limited to wandering around (and blundering into) challenges of proportionately increasing progression. D&D, as played in the proper style, is not a video game, and does not operate under the assumptions of video game play. Or rather, it has SOME similarity to...generally older...computer RPGs (here I'll cite The Bard's Tale and SSI's Phantasie III: The Wrath of Nikademus) which took their cues from Dungeons & Dragons, but which were limited by their particular medium...namely, the requirement of being finite and requiring an endpoint to their "story."

Correct play of D&D (and, yes, again, throw your tomatoes at me and insert your own air quotes every time I write "correct") involves the telling of not one but THREE stories, only two of which matter much, and NONE of which require any sort of "emotional satisfaction" from an unfolding narrative structure. These are:

1. The Setting Background
2. The PCs Actions
3. The Campaign's Development

The setting background is all the DM-facing stuff that goes into preparation before the game is played. It is the creation and outlining of lands and power structures, determining the whys and wherefores of any dungeons, "histories" of the world, thoughts on why monsters exist, and conceptualizing how magic functions. It's all the various bits and pieces of "fluff" that the DM must add to make a setting suitable for running a D&D game; it can be amorphous or specific or gradually built-up over many sessions of gaming. It can be based on real world stuff, fiction novels or film, or anything else. This particular story matters far less to the players than the Dungeon Master, as "sensibility" of a setting is only a secondary concern compared to the action at the table, assuming the DM is competent at their craft (i.e. if the players are more thrilled discussing the setting's background than "what's going on" in play, then there's a major issue with the DM's ability to generate engagement).

The second story being told, and the one of most immediate concern for everyone at the table, is the story of the player characters' actions. This is game play itself and (as I've written before) it should have all the narrative structure and theming of a really crazy camping trip...which is to say: not much. It is simply the story of what the PCs did during any particular game session. It is not concerned with PC backstories or drama, it is concerned with ACTIONS. Was there a fight? Was a dungeon explored? Did anyone die? Was there a really noteworthy victory won? Was a PC transformed into something "unnatural?" Was the shopkeeper a surly cuss? Did the goblins become unexpected allies? Etc. D&D, correctly played, provides player engagement in the moment because of the circumstances of the game, not because of any "meaningful constructed narrative." And it is that player engagement that leads to emotional investment of a much deeper sort than one pre-constructed prior to play.

The final story being told over the course of a true and proper D&D game is that of the campaign's development. This is the story...the legacy really...of a DM's setting/world after having been met by the players. As in real life, no one knows when the game begins just who will end up being the hero, who will be the goat, who is destined to die in tragic (or humorous) fashion or how the history of the campaign world will be written. Depending on the length of the campaign being played, the setting may be RADICALLY changed over time, with kingdoms rising and falling, regions getting "nuked" with magic or monsters, old dungeons being cleaned out, and new dungeons being discovered...not to mention all the failures and successes along a path littered with the corpses of dead (and raised and re-killed) adventurers. By the end of such a campaign...IF it ends...a common theme may be discovered, but just as likely one may find an interesting "world history" featuring the antics of many important (player character) individuals of a minor or major impact.

The problem with "classic" play as defined by Bell...and ONE of the reasons behind the shift to "trad" play...is when imagination and/or effort on the part of the Dungeon Master fails the players at the table. When there is NO engagement, because the world is too simplistic, boring, undefined, unrealized...when the game is nothing but a scaled up version of the Dungeon! board game, then yes, players will try to find their OWN methods of having fun, creating dramatic backgrounds to spice up a bland setting, inventing funny voices and quirky personalities for bland avatars that represent nothing more than a collection of numbers scribbled on paper. Gygax himself recognized this and wrote about in his section The Ongoing Campaign (DMG, p. 112):

"...there must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and the good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues, hints should be given to players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities. Thus, characters begin as less than pawns, but as they progress in expertise, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly, piece in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose to their play...their actions having meaning above and beyond personal aggrandizement."

"Classic" play is thus NOT limited to "challenge-based play," solely for the sake of progressing to fighting bigger monsters with larger treasure hoards. Good play on the part of players does lead to advancement, earning them the right and (hopefully) ability to take on such challenges, but this isn't the endgame of play itself...not by a long shot!

Likewise, please note that Gygax's text is NOT relating to the establishment of domains and strongholds. As he writes in the paragraph just preceding: "...even your most dedicated players will occasionally find that dungeon levels and wilderness castles grow stale, regardless of subtle differences and unusual challenges." He is talking about sustaining campaigns through something more, in order to stave off "participant attrition" and "enthusiast ennui." The complete game...as envisioned by Gygax and codified in his AD&D tomes...was supposed to be more than that.

What is was never supposed to be, though, was what it would become after his ouster from the company in 1986. Every iteration has of the game since Gygax closed his formulation of the DMG (circa 1979), every variant...even Gygax's own!...have taken the game farther and farther away from the fashion in which it was meant to be played. This drift in the game's design parameters cannot entirely be laid at the feet of the publisher, of course (more on that in a second), but it is the publishers (TSR, WotC, Hasbro, etc.) who ultimately bear responsibility for how the game is played. Only the publisher, as owner and caretaker, have real authority and influence over the customer base.

And the current publishers have, largely, abdicated their responsibility, instead focusing on marketing and selling their brand. "Have fun! Make the game what you want!" they say [so long as you continue to put money in our pocket...that's the unspoken bit]. Consider this: if they ACTUALLY came down and said "this is the way you're supposed to play D&D" would there be the confusion and arguments and misinformation about the game being spread far and wide on Ye Old Internets? Would there be blogs and talking heads decrying one edition or another? Would there be youngsters turning to Matt Mercer when trying to figure out HOW one is supposed to play this D&D game?

So, instead, you have people buy the game...and then abandon it on a shelf. You have people that "dabble" a bit...and then move on to other hobbies. You have enthusiasts who lose their enthusiasm...and drift into RPGs that better facilitate their priorities of game play. 

And you have a plethora of people screaming bloody murder at each other over something that should be the most amazing, innovative game ever invented!

NOW...when I write that there is only ONE TRUE edition of D&D, I'm not being facetious. Nor am I being judgmental of your particular preferred edition of play. Heck, I'm about to publish another supplement for the B/X game myself (before the end of the year, fingers crossed), so it would be great for me personally if you were open to other versions of the rules!

I'm not trying to denigrate your tastes, your style, or anything else. And I'm not saying that AD&D is a perfect game, nor that E. Gary Gygax was a perfect designer. I'm just saying it's the greatest game I've ever encountered, and Mr. Gygax was largely responsible for its best iteration. And I'd like more people to play it...and play it in the manner it was intended, which is neither "classic" nor "trad." Nor is it (generally) in the fashion of the OSR, nor of the OC/Neo-Trad school.

Right at this very moment, I have a post-it stuck to my DMG with 7 elements of "true D&D" jotted down. In a way, these elements are the things I'd like to institute as a replacement for the mythic Old School ethos I rebutted in a prior post. They are not meant to function as a new "primer"...I suspect none of my readers need such elementary instruction in D&D game play...but they are meant to "prime" the reader, as in to make ready (e.g. "prime the pump") for game play, both as a player and as a Dungeon Master.

That will be tomorrow's post, since this one has already gone long. Please feel free to post your scathing denouncements in the comments section.