Taking Castles

Oh, the things I get dragged into.

; )

Over on the Pedantic discord channel...mm...Wednesday (I think) there was a minor dustup over such-n-such argument about BrOSR/Jeffrogaxian 1:1 time play not being conducive (or supported) by the 1E "domain" rules or somethin-somethin. Not a terribly big deal (IMO) as I've already settled my thoughts/feelings on 1:1 time play and I'm content to NOT tell people how to enjoy themselves when it comes to running their campaigns (folks are going to do what they're going to do till they're tired of it). 

But then Ash wrote the following: 

It is better to take existing castles, at first. This is true for literally any campaign, timekeeping or no...One of my players took over a ruined keep, and made it a stronghold. however, that same player (once the ruined keep was established) began the process of building new strongholds/buildings from scratch

To which I had to put my foot in it, with this:

Rehabbing a house (let alone a ruined castle) would be a tremendous job given the presumed state of a pseudo-medieval campaign world. You're going to get skilled laborers, masons, carpenters, etc. to come out to the middle of an orc-infested wilderness to re-build a used lair? Are you kidding? Such a place probably ain't fit for human habitation, even after you clean out the slimes, vermin, and otyugh...best to burn it to the ground.

And also:

Taking over a ruin (that itself was, presumably, taken over in the past by whatever monsters were lairing there) isn't as easy as just killing the critters and moving in.

As well as:

A ruin would require substantial rehabilitation after recovering it from the monstrous creatures that live there before it would be a fit habitation for your average player character type? Um...that seems pretty obvious. Though, I suppose, only if one gives a shit about world building...nothing in the rules demand such action, though I suppose a DM could make it pretty difficult for PCs using the disease tables. 

Normal folks (even adventurous PCs) don't usually want to settle down in a troll cave. And a ruin would be...um...one step up from that?

Oh, AND this:

A fortress built by a humanoid tribe is quite another issue. I was talking about a once-human (or dwarf or whatever) ruin that had taken over by hobgoblins. You want to claim an orc fort as your base of operations? You want to be the guy who lives in the orc hut? What is that going to do to your PCs' reputation?

I was having a bad day, I suppose (actually I was) and was in a combative mode...silly and childish on my part. Ash later discussed the incident on the Rolling Bones v-cast, refuting my protestations as (in part) one example of folks not grokking how domain play can function when running an AD&D campaign with 1:1 time. Which wasn't really the case...or, rather, wasn't really the point I was trying to communicate. The POINT, in fact, was just that taking over a ruin (or a lair or a "dungeon") for use as a stronghold isn't something to be done on a whim or a lark.

Doesn't mean you can't do so...I've had my own musings regarding taking such action. However, one should note that even back in 2009 (the hay-day of my adult B/X play), I was't so glib as to say such would be easy, and there were extenuating circumstances that made such a location worthy of consideration for my toad-worshipping cleric; observe the thoughts of "Younger Me:"

Sure, it would take a little work to get it up and running (a rickety bridge would need to be replaced, new furnishings added, kicked-in doors re-built). But for the most part, the place was of good dwarvish construction, had its own water supply, was located only a day from civilization (a little out-of-the way from curious travelers, but not inconvenient for obtaining supplies). Plus the waterfall and underground pond/river, and the small pool outside all said, “great-place-to-worship-amphibious-deity” to me.

Even at the tender age of 36 (before I'd started to grasp the importance of world-building and thoughtful campaign planning), I had an inkling that such undertakings would not be a walk-in-the-park. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but rewards of value (even in D&D-land) require effort. DMs that skimp on the effort do so at their own peril. Yes, the game is a game and we want to maintain its "game-ness;" however, we don't want it to devolve into Ren-faire farce. That way lies contempt, much the same as fudging dice rolls.

Every would be stronghold-nee-lair requires its own consideration in this regard. When the Starks retake WinterFell from the Boltons, it's mainly a job of policing the corpses and cleaning bloodstains off the cobblestones. In other words: normal castle maintenance (in a violent D&D world anyway). But that's humans taking a human habitation from humans that were using it for the same purpose (human habitation) that it was originally intended. We're not talking about a place with walking deads, acid-dripping slimes, otughs and owlbears. We're not talking about a ruin or a tomb or a "dungeon."

I discussed this with my nine year old daughter (1E player): she was aghast at the idea. "It's a ruin! You'd need to fix it before living in it!" The idea of living in a place once inhabited by monsters sounded crazy to her. What kind of stench is left behind by a tribe of goblins or gnolls? How about the walking corpses that roamed the halls?

Yes, orcs build their own longhouses and forts, but how long to air the thing out once the orcs are gone? Do they employ glaziers? Doubtful given their aversion to sunlight. Would a lair built by inhuman hands be suitable for human habitation? Maybe. A goblin or kobold hall would probably have low ceilings; a fortress built to accommodate giants might have really, really heavy doors.

The desire for PCs to own property...some place to stash their treasure, some place to act as a base of operations...is a natural desire, and one likely to come up sooner rather than later in any established campaign. And such desires are likely to come up long before their characters reach 9th level or find an excess of gold burning holes in their trousers...why not use one of these cleaned out lairs as "adventurer HQ?" It's got walls and a roof, doesn't it?

But in a well-designed campaign, "walls and a roof" aren't the only consideration. Living in a cave (or under a bridge) is fine-and-dandy for a nest of trolls. But that's not a suitable demesne for a group of 5th and 6th level PCs, despite the expedience of such a shelter. Regardless of a lair's defensibleness, it's location (in a swamp, on a mountain top, underground, whatever) just might not make it livable. Probably not a place to entertain the local duke, or the princess, or the wizard that has a quest for you.

That's the thing: an orcish hill fort, a crumbling tower, a haunted moathouse...these are not places one wants to set up shop, generally speaking. Unless they are in an ideal location (close to resources...both material and personnel), and possibly not even then. The hobgoblin fortress had been lording it over the local villagers for years, and now they've been wiped out...but does it still stand as a symbol of degradation and malevolence? Is it a constant reminder of slavery and subjugation? Should it not be torn down and something new, bright and hopeful, be erected in its place?

Maybe not...maybe such issues don't arise in your campaign. Or maybe, like me, it appeals to your dark humor to build your base in a rustic humanoid lair...you have a certain penchant for the dramatic flair of Kraven the Hunter, and relish the idea of a PC warlord whose stronghold is decorated in skulls and antlers and the occasional banner sewn from skinned humanoid. Even then, it's generally going to take your character(s) a while to bring the place up to snuff. 

No site is going to be "move in ready" from the jump. Cheaper than building your own castle? Sure. Faster to rehab then quarrying the stone and prepping the timber. 100%. But no picnic...no easy-breezy.

And me saying that has nothing to do with robbing players of their "shortcuts;" it CAN be a "shortcut" to claim Quasqueton as your new abode. Of course it can! And that's a nice little reward (on top of whatever loot you plumbed from it) for cleaning out the various monsters and villains, undead and vermin, that had (previously) spent YEARS if not DECADES (or CENTURIES) leaving their filth all over the place: bones and excrement and the detritus of uncared for interior structures. If I don't vacuum my house every couple weeks, the floors get FILTHY, and I'm just raising two kids, not a tribe of kobolds that cook indoors and aren't known for washing much. Don't forget Gygax included systems for dealing out diseases and parasitic infections, too!

It's not "screwing the players" to make them work a bit turning a hovel into a home; it's simply common sense (oh! that phrase!). Some things (some!) can be inferred from our own experiences...like maybe there are times when PCs should take off their armor and unbuckle their sword belts. We don't need to have overly complex systems in place to handle cleanup operations, but neither should we simply hand-waive such inconveniences...unless (maybe) PCs have access to a pocket djinni or similar. TIME. MONEY. These are the driving factors of the D&D game. Hand-waive them at your own peril. 

NOW...does all this seem like some argument against using 1:1 time in your campaign/game? Maybe. Fact is, the thought hadn't really crossed my mind, even when I was initially putting my foot in my mouth. As I said, I'm not interested nor worried in the slightest about the debate over whether or not 1:1 time is valid or "the only valid" way to play D&D. That debate has no influence over how I run my campaign. In general, I run AD&D based on the guidelines in the DMG ("G" for "guide," yeah?)...and the DMG includes notes for construction and labor and materials. So why shouldn't I use those notes and instructions...both for players wishing to build their own castles, and as inspiration (and guidelines) when it comes to how challenging it'll be to re-hab the party's new (half-destroyed) digs. 

Hope all that makes sense and doesn't overly annoy too many people. G'night!

; )

Jeffro's D&D

This is a post about the style of play being promulgated by the #BrOSR.

I first became aware of Jeffro Johnson and his particular method of D&D play about a year ago (circa July 2021).  Read through his blog, picked up his Appendix N book, had a little friendly back-and-forth with fellow BrO BDubs (on his blog). Meant to write a post or two about the whole thing MONTHS ago, but, well, time got away from me.

But then a couple days ago, I had the chance to watch Aaron the Pedantic's video interview of Jeffro and James Streissand and I found that I had a few thoughts to share, regarding this...rather interesting...version of old school D&D play.

• RE Appendix N and retracing roots: I haven't finished Jeffro's book (it sits on my nightstand along with several others), but I've read large sections of it and skimmed others. In addition to providing general overviews of the Appendix N books I haven't read, there are some good insights into certain books impact on the D&D game. There are also (at times) some minor diatribes and obnoxiousness that I find grating, and some "points" that I find a bit wide of the mark. Still, just as I find the main value of the DMG to be in its insight into Gygax's mind (that is, his approach to the game...which one may or may not disagree with), I think going back and reviewing this literature can give one an understanding of how that mind (and, thus, the game) was formed. It's a starting point from which to evolve and build.

[hmm...I'm probably not explaining that right, and will receive a lot of complaints from all sides. However, that's not the point of this post. I guess I'd just say: I find it useful to understand the origins of things in order to contextualize certain ideas, even if those ideas were larger (and later) influenced more by the context of how they functioned as a matter of play. Understanding that context can determine how imperative or intrinsic they are to the overall concept/paradigm. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that these things are sacrosanct...and this point also applies to the next bullet]

• RE the Value of playing AD&D RAW: I have almost zero quibbles with Jeffro's reasons for playing AD&D "by the book." I think the points he makes regarding this (in his interview with Aaron) are pretty spot-on. As I wrote myself (a couple weeks back): the more I play, the more I simply default to the book instruction. Even his explanations of why to use, for example, player grading with regard to training time makes sense: it encourages a particular style/method of play. THAT being said: I'll reiterate that I find SOME of these rules to be A) crutches that are unneeded when proper world building is applied, and B) detrimental to player autonomy that (again) are unnecessary in a richly developed world. Factional play based on alignment, for example, is a limiting and rather elementary approach to determining motivation. It's possible to have a deeper world than that (especially given an adult mindset). I think some of these things, played long enough, can naturally melt away. Still, similar to having an understanding of Appendix N, it's good to have an understanding of the original rules (hopefully based on actual play) BEFORE discarding/replacing them.

• RE running your campaign with 1:1 time keeping ("JeffroGaxian Time Keeping"): First, I'll state the obvious: it is clear that Jeffro is running a wonderfully fun, kick-ass campaign that players are enjoying. He's excited, they're excited, everyone's feeling happy and fulfilled. That's wonderful...keep on keeping on, Bros. Now the less obvious: I think Jeffro is pretty clearly incorrect to state this is the fashion D&D is intended to be played in, or was played in during the 70s. He's made some gross misinterpretations of the AD&D text (and other, early wargaming sources) which are easily cleared up by checking them against the original text of OD&D (from which the bulk of AD&D rules are derived). The section on TIME is the last main portion of LBB3 (before the Afterword, pages 35&36) and states:

As the campaign goes into full swing it is probable that there will be various groups going every which way and all at different time periods. It is suggested that a record of each player be kept, the referee checking off each week as it is spent. Reconcile the passage of time thus:

Dungeon expedition = 1 week

Wilderness adventure = 1 move = 1 day

1 week of actual time = 1 week of game time

The time for dungeon adventures considers only preparations and a typical, one day descent into the pits.

The time for Wilderness expeditions would include days of rest and recuperation.

Actual time would not be counted off for players "out" on a Wilderness adventure, but it would for those sequestered in their dens, hidey-holes, keeps, castles, etc., as well as for those in the throes of some expedition in the underworld.

TIME in the D&D (and AD&D) game is, as has been pointed out by those from The Old Days is meant to be elastic.   When Frank Mentzer states he was in "training jail" for a couple weeks and had to play a different character in Gygax's campaign, I wouldn't see that as a literal need to wait two (real world) weeks for playing a particular character; rather, that's two (or three or four) game weeks that need to be waited out...weeks that could be passed in a hand wave of time during, for example, travel from one town to the next. To the player, of course, it would still seem like a penalty...if the rest of the group was getting to delve some dungeon during the time (in game weeks) that the character was out doing "down-time" activity. But the impetus here is on keeping careful records of character action within the campaign (in order to order/structure where folks are and account for any anomalies/discrepancies...like those outlined in the DMG). 

Using 1:1 time in ALL matters, makes the careful tracking of time UN-necessary; "Let's see it's July 8th and it you want to rest for two weeks and then train for three? Okay, we'll see that PC again on August 11th." Certainly that's easier than tracking individuals by day (as I interpret the DMG outlining as the correct procedure), and especially easier if your campaign has a large number of characters. But that's what we did back in the day, taking the HARDER road...and without the advantage of computer spreadsheets. It's what I still do (albeit with spreadsheets)...but fortunately the number of characters in our campaign is small (six at the moment) and they're still in the EARLY stages of their careers (thus adventuring together).

With regard to the "best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening" quote on DMG page 37, I've always interpreted "no play" as nothing going on: PCs aren't on adventures, they're not traveling, they're not doing anything "game related" (like training, spell research, hiring experts, etc.). The party's out of the dungeon, back at the village tavern, and our group doesn't meet/play for a couple weeks or a month...okay, then, a couple weeks (or a month) have passed in the campaign. But time spent on game stuff is game time and game time is elastic. Without elastic time, I would argue that Jeffro & Co. is neglecting a LARGE part of the AD&D game, namely the deeper delves that are possible (expeditions into the Underdark, massive castle/tomb structures, journeys to other planes of existence...or other planets/dimensions). I'm not saying what they're doing ain't fun...I'm just saying there's more fun to be had.

• RE "Patron Play" (giving PCs high level NPCs to run):  When I started reading about Jeffro's experiments with (what he calls) "Patron Play," I didn't really grok what he was doing or how. After hearing him discuss it on the aforementioned video, I now have a better grasp of what he's talking about: basically, he's shortcutting what would be a normal part of the long-term (organically grown) AD&D campaign. On page 7 of the PHB, Gygax writes:

Players will add characters to their initial adventurer as the milieu expands so that each might actually have several characters, each involved in some separate and distinct adventure form, busily engaged in the game at the same moment of "Game Time". This allows participation by many players in games that are substantially different from game to game as dungeon, metropolitan, and outdoor settings are rotated from playing to playing. And perhaps a war between players will be going on (with battles actually fought out on the tabletop with miniature figures) one night, while on the next, characters of these two contending players are helping each other to survive somewhere in a wilderness.

What occurs organically in play...and what I experienced in the multi-year campaigns of my youth...is that player characters that achieve great success (i.e. achieve high level, build strongholds, acquire followers) become the faction leaders and 'patrons' of the campaign setting. This does not mean they are retired from play...far from it! Generally they become the movers-and-shakers, hatching their own plots, pursuing their own schemes/goals, raising their own armies of conquests...and, at the same time, starting new, young characters who would be adventuring in small delves, or acting as agents of these powerful scions of the realm. Most players in our old campaign had multiple characters: Jocelyn had half-a-dozen, Matt had five, Scott had (at least) five. One or two PCs of each player were powerful figures with all the trappings and ambitions of such...the rest were minor characters, started because someone wanted to play a Drow or illusionist or whatever. Minor players (i.e. players who didn't play regularly, like Crystal, Jason, and Rob) would only have one character, but some of these were still high enough level to be factions of their own (like Jason's thief guildmaster) or had dedicated henchmen (like Crystal's fighter, Tangina). 

While the presence of these power brokers didn't preclude "normal" adventuring (my co-DM and I still ran modules, including Tsojcanth, Ravenloft, and the Demonweb Pits), much of the campaign action was driven by these high level characters, their agendas and their rivalries. My own character...a high level bard with no stronghold...often acted a wandering monkey wrench / force of destruction (something like Elric in the Young Kingdoms, perhaps...but with more dying and resurrection)...and there were many times when some characters would stumble across the evidence of another (player) character's passing army or the remains of a crucified rival, or one group would plan to assassinate another character at his wedding. Things were happening all the time, at multiple levels/layers, all while being (semi-)coordinated between two teen Dungeon Masters. It IS a fun way to play...but it is also prone to a lot of inter-player conflict and PVP issues which, at this particular time (and for many reasons), I'm disinclined to allow in my campaign. 

Then again, my players haven't yet reached the "mover/shaker" levels of experience...that critical mass of self-sustaining campaigning, that I was trying to explain the other day. Jeffro doesn't have this issue: instead, he's distributed high level non-player characters of his setting amongst his players. Which is...admittedly...one way to get to the same place. I don't mind this approach (terribly), but right now I'm trying to train up young players in the art of AD&D. Different level ranges have different "feels" to them: a 5th level character doesn't sweat the same encounter as a 1st level character, and a 10th level character looks at 5th level challenge much the same.  Likewise, the goals and objectives of play change at the various tiers of play: a first level character isn't going to get as much out of the knocking over the Sultan's treasure vault, while such a score is EXACTLY what a 9th level fighter could use to fund her army and add a curtain wall to her stronghold. 12th level magic-users aren't (usually) going to find coveted 6th level spell scrolls lying around hobgoblin lairs.

Dungeons & Dragons absolutely works...and rocks!...on multiple levels of play simultaneously, just as Jeffro describes.  And it is a style of play that probably seems very foreign and alien sounding to folks who grew up with D&D post-DragonLance era (with a story centered on one small group of heroes), or the computer RPG era (limited by its medium to a single party), or post-WotC era D&D (where each "campaign" represents a single story arc to be played out prior to players creating new characters for the "next campaign"). My own D&D play started years prior to those eras and, over time, evolved into something very much like what Jeffro (or Arneson, in The First Fantasy Campaign) describes. However, done "organically" (i.e. without just handing our various NPC faction leaders as "patrons"), this evolution takes years of sustained, committed play to develop. Maybe that sounds like a long time...but remember that D&D is a game that can last your whole life; it's okay to put in the time to do it. In fact, I personally believe it makes for a richer campaign, as the participants have a greater depth of care and commitment to something they've grown and developed themselves.

All right, that's all my thoughts on what Jeffro and the BrOSR is doing as far as their game goes. As far as some of their other stuff (cultivating a particular brand of hostility), I won't say much more than I think it's detrimental...both to the hobby and to what they're trying to promote. But...well, that's all I'll say.

I am now officially back from vacation (pulled into the driveway last night). It was very enjoyable and restful, but I'm glad to be home.

: )