Showing posts with label advanced play. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advanced play. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

A is for Adventure

Yes, indeed....another April A to Z blogging challenge. Almost missed this year as it was completely off my radar. But reading Tim's blog this morning reminded me of it (even though he's abstaining this season), and gave me an idea for a theme as well: specifically, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, a subject I spend an inordinate amount of time combing the internet and yet cannot find enough content for. At least, quality content.

For the month of April 2026, I'm going to endeavor to change that. Specifically, I'm going to try (in 26 blog posts) to give people a crash course in the AD&D (first edition) game...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.

Let's get down to it.

A is for Adventure...the whole reason people should play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.

I've written the words many times over the years: AD&D is a game of fantasy adventure. It is one of the hardest things to explain to people who have been brought up on later editions of the game. The instructional language in the books would have you believe that the game is about "telling stories" or "story creation," which was most certainly untrue in the early days of the hobby and is largely untrue even today.

And I don't mean lipservice adventure. Ask a modern day player about D&D and they MIGHT say "yes, we are telling stories about 'adventurers' that go on fantastical adventures."  No, that's not what I mean. If I meant that, I'd say that: that "adventuring characters" are the premise for a storytelling game. 

"Yeah, we tell stories...stories about adventure." No.

A game of AD&D is a game of adventure. You have an adventure. The players participate in the adventure. That IS the game. 

The character that the player uses to participate in the game is NOTHING. It is MEANINGLESS. It is the vehicle for the player's interaction with the game world. It is not a part to be acted by the player, like in a play. It is not a fictional being that must be portrayed and developed with issues and storylines begging for resolution. None of that.

When we play AD&D we are not participating in a literary exercise. We are not engaging in performance.

The character is a means to an end...it is a tool that gives the player the ability to interact with the mechanics of the game and imaginary environment we call the "game world." It is NECESSARY to have a character, because the character (in addition to being a bunch of numbers that signify in-game effectiveness for rule interaction) is designed to be an effective method of survival in a (by design) dangerous game environment. Wizards. Warriors. Etc.

But make no mistake: the character is just a vehicle for interaction. Here is an example that (I hope) describes my approach to the game:

I roll a set of ability scores. I decide I would like to play a particular character type...let's say a half-orc fighter...and find that I have the correct scores to do so. I note that I am a half-orc fighter, I purchase my equipment (based on randomly determined starting gold), I choose an "alignment," (if playing in a campaign that uses such), and sit down at the table to play.

When the DM presents a situation to me...whether it is a sudden combat with goblins, a roadside encounter with dwarvish pilgrims, a chamber with an unguarded statue of gold that might be worth some coin, or whatever...I say to myself:
Given that I am a half-orc fighter (of alignment "x") in this particular situation, what do I do? What actions do I take?
Now some might say, 'Wait! Wait! You're just playing a character! You ARE trying to put yourself in the fictional shoes of this fictional being, just like an actor playing a role on stage!'

To which I say: NO. I am me (JB) taking actions that I (JB) want to take...in full knowledge and understanding that we are playing a game...given that my capabilities are determined by the character I am using.

My half-orc is a stout fighter. He can take some punishment and dish it out. This informs and influences how I play the game...I can't use magic spells to impact the world, for example. If I was playing an elven wizard, my options would be different.

The character is UNIMPORTANT. Characters DIE...by design. The game is DESIGNED to be challenging and the risk to one's fictional playing piece (i.e. the character) can be DEATH. Fortunately, you can always create another character and continue playing. 

Because this is a game we are playing, not a story we are telling.

WHY? Why do we want to play a game of "adventure?"

Leaving aside the usual reasons that fall under the category of "fun with friends," adventure...i.e. 'pulse-pounding excitement'...is not something people get to experience every day. Certainly not in cooperation with each other. USUALLY, to get that kind of action, a person has to be part of a sports team (not possible for many folks), OR go to war (undesirable for a LOT of folks). With AD&D you can experience adventure (dangerous challenges) with friends (AD&D is cooperative by design) in a SAFE environment (no one's really getting killed, and if you pull a muscle, you're probably playing the game wrong).  You do not need to be of a certain age, gender, fitness level, or socio-economic class to engage in a game of AD&D. You only need to be able to read, write, and roll dice...a pretty low barrier of entry.

So that's where we start: with the correct approach to AD&D as a game. It is important we have a solid understanding of the hobby with which we're engaged, because everything else will be built on that foundation. A lot of time and effort goes into running an AD&D game, and we don't want it collapsing due to false pretenses and misaligned expectations.

This is the beginning.

Tuesday, December 31, 2024

Last Post Of 2024

Going to be pretty busy today (mostly cooking and cleaning) as we somehow managed to invite 10 people over for New Year's Eve dinner. 

*sigh*  So much for my relaxing holiday.

Ah, well, I'm sure it'll be fun. Plus, I'm not driving anywhere so I don't have to ration my fuel intake (i.e. alcohol consumption). The wife is doing "dry January" this year, and I'll probably join her...want to lay off the liquid calories for a while, not to mention rest the liver.

ANYway, I'm going to keep this one short.

Item #1: if you plan on submitting something for Ben Gibson's Adventure Site contest, this is your last day to do so. Or contact, Ben...I don't know, maybe he'll be lenient with late entries depending on your time zone. I'm going to be one of the judge/reviewers and I look forward to reading everyone's entries. Good luck!

Item #2: our revised Blood Bowl rules have worked great. I lost my first game against the wood elves 6-0 (we have not yet instituted extra points), but it would have been a lot closer if the blizzard conditions hadn't stifled any field goal attempts from my orks. I am now playing the Amazons and am leading 6-0 in the first quarter...although the ladies are driving. 

A couple/few notes:
  • The 2E NAF rules calls for four, eight turn quarters (each turn being a "down" of football). This is too many (i.e. the game would take far too long), and so we've cut this time in twain (so that each half is eight turns long). Worries that this would make the game feel less like "real football" proved to be unfounded, especially given A) that the 2-minute rule is in effect the last two turns of each half, and B) a turnover (i.e. a fumble recovery or interception) does not run time off the turn clock. The game still feels like gridiron football (with pressure to score within four downs), and yet it's still Blood Bowl...by the end of the game, both sides were down to ten men on the field (due to horrific bloodletting).
  • When it came to roster building we ignored all the price values and just said: everyone has a full team of 16 plus two team re-rolls (that's two re-rolls per half). We also said we weren't going to worry about star players or SPPs...just play with the skills on your roster (5E with regard to orks and wood elves, 4E with regard to dark elves and amazons). Turns out the teams are still pretty well-balanced! Diego needed (and got!) some pretty good rolls to injure as many orks as he did, or I would have really ground him down in the attrition battle. Except for those damn war dancers...those guys are dead-hard to bring down (knocked out his treeman, though).
  • We've added the gridiron football rules regarding the line of scrimmage. For those who don't know, this boils down to three basic additions:
  1. There must be at least seven players on the line of scrimmage
  2. Only the players on either end of the line are "eligible receivers" (in addition to players in the backfield).
  3. Only eligible receivers may advance beyond the line of scrimmage on a passing play.
In practice, this has meant that the five interior offensive linemen (the center, two guards, and two tackles) can throw a block to start the down but cannot "follow-up" if the opponent is pushed/knocked over. After the ball is passed (beyond the line of scrimmage), these players are allowed to advance.

2nd Down at the 50 yard line. The orks are
set up in a 4-3 with a safety in the box.

Anyway, it's worked great and we're already considering ways we can spice it up, including calling 'audibles' or pre-snap adjustments, and implementing time outs and play clocks (i.e. time limits on setting your team). So far, though, it's working great. I'll post some photos when I have a chance.

Item #3: I am looking forward to the New Year, but there's going to be quite a bit going on in January/February including getting Diego's high school nailed down, selling my mother's house (which I've decided to do), and coaching volleyball for the kids.  I suspect posting will be rather light, other than ASCII reviews and my (planned) 2024 retrospective. I am working on some D&D stuff (mostly adventures), but I don't want to post about that until after I've had a chance to do some play-testing. My dive/analysis of the Unearthed Arcana is all-but-over, and I'm quite happy with where I ended up on that one. 

All right, that's it for today. Happy New Year everyone!
: )

A closer look at the Amazon team; painted
in the Bills color scheme (very patriotic).


Saturday, December 28, 2024

A Very Blood Bowl Christmas

Yes, another blog post before 2024. Man, my blogging has trailed off these last three years, but at least I'm up from 2023. Which isn't say much (I took a couple months off in 2023 due to the death of my mother), so...improvement? Mm.

Still...well, never mind. This isn't the "New Year's retrospective" post...we'll get to that in a couple days.

Our Christmas holiday has been (mostly) spectacular, the one blemish being my idiot brother and his asshole behavior. But aside from that, it's been great...the shopping went off without a hitch, got the tree trimmed and the house decorated (mostly my wife), got to Mass on time, got invited to a Christmas party where we made a bunch of new friends, had some other new friends over for day-after-Christmas dinner (that was great), and...yeah, been mostly relaxing and eating stuff that other people have been making for a change.  I don't think I've had to cook in over a week, except maybe one or two breakfasts for the kids.  Between my wife making all her holiday favorites and my kids baking pies and cookies (yes, my children bake...a lot), the only thing I've had to cook is a hot pot of coffee every morning.

Yeah, my life is blessed. I know. And I am thankful.

My kids were pretty thrilled with the gifts they received, Diego going so far as to remark this was one of the best (if not the best) Christmases he could remember...despite not receiving a single video game system or massive Lego set on their list. One of their highlights was my own Christmas gift to them, something entirely NOT on their list: a portable carrying/storage case for their miniatures from GW, capable of carrying a single Blood Bowl team. While this in and of itself was pretty neat, they were quite astounded/pleased to open them up and find their own fully painted teams inside, decked out in color schemes I'd slyly elicited from them in conversation!

Damn, but that was a tricky one to pull off, and I don't mind saying I take quite a bit of pride in pulling it off. I believe it was last Christmas, that I want to get them their own (painted) Blood Bowl teams, and I ordered them on-line from an Etsy group that does really nice work. Unfortunately, the delivery was slow and plagued with issues (one team arrived without bases) and I was unable to do more than deliver the figures in a box with the promise that we'd "paint them together." Still a nice gift, but underwhelming considering my expectation. 

Well, it's been a year and they've never gotten painted (though we did prime them, we got into painting the SW Legion minis instead). And while they've been used several times for our BB games, it's just not the same, you know? Hard to keep track of which lineman is which when they don't have any numbers on the jerseys.

So it's been a few months since the last time we'd even pulled out the Blood Bowl, and longer still since the paint pots had come out.  And I saw those carrying cases at the Warhammer store in Lynnwood when we were out window shopping, and I thought: this is my chance. So for the last 5-6 days before Christmas, I started getting up between 4 and 5 in the morning, sneaking downstairs, gathering all my gear, and then painting-painting-painting like one of Santa's slave-elves. An hour or two before I estimated the kids would be waking up, I'd stow all the supplies and clean up any evidence of my nefarious work before grabbing a couple more winks of sleep.  It was a near thing: I stayed up Christmas Eve after the kids had gone off to bed, in order to finish the last bits. Then I boxed 'em, wrapped 'em and put them under the tree. It worked out to be a delightful surprise come Christmas day...and all the lost sleep was worth it for the excitement on their faces.

Personally, I'm just glad I could still paint. My eyes have gotten so bad with regard to close-up vision that I really can't see without reading glasses, even with really good light. And I'm one of the vain idiots that refuses to wear glasses (I never needed them for 50 years of life, why should I start now?)...heck, I can still read in bed with the use of a portable lamp. But for the painting project I HAD to wear readers (2.0 magnification!)...I just could not see to get the paint down without them. Plus, the eyestrain/fatigue of the early morning hours didn't help make things any less blurry.

*sigh* At least no one saw me wearing them. 

So, yeah. A very Blood Bowl Christmas. There were other games under the tree (including a murder mystery game and the latest versions of BattleTech and Crossbows & Catapults), but now we're all in the mood for some BB mayhem. Probably spurred on by the fact that the NFL play-offs are right around the corner (come on, Cards, we need you to bear the Rams tomorrow!), there's an excitement for the old pigskin (and elfskin and dwarfskin, etc.) that's been missing since September and the start of the football season. Yeah, I think today is the day we start our own little tournament. The board is already laid out on the dining room table.

The last couple days I've been re-reading the 2nd Edition Blood Bowl Companion supplement, again familiarizing myself with "Official NAF Rules" which attempt to model actual gridiron football, including downs, drives, punting, field goals, etc. For the most part, I think they are really quite good...much, much closer to American football than the rugby/soccer combo that has been the standard BB play since 3rd edition. I think I'd even be willing to simply adopt them "as is;" they'd work well enough with the other 5th edition rules once you get used to the idea that a guy falling over does NOT automatically create a turnover. But the urge to tart them up and make them even more in line with the NFL I know and love is...strong. Very strong. 

BUT (stifling that urge)...the other League rules, draconian as some of them are (the training rules, for example...wow!), make quite a bit of sense. For a dedicated group of Blood Bowlers, such a League (along with a commissioner armed with a laptop and spreadsheets) could be...entertaining? Yeah, I think "entertaining" is the word I'm looking for.

I find myself intrigued, rather than nonplussed (which I think was my previous reaction). These are worth a spin. 

An eight team league, divided into two conferences. Official NAF rules (except that we need to include halfling and gobbo teams. Sorry...can't play without 'em!). All the fiddly crunch of the old school league rules (including apothecaries, salaries, rookie drafts, "disenchantment" points, training, benchwarmers, etc.). We'll leave out some of the weirder items: dwarf steamrollers, hired assassins and pit traps, for example. But I'm feeling everything else. Yeah, man...I'm feeling it. I'm feeling expansive this holiday season; like the Grinch growing his heart three sizes larger. I don't feel like 'playing small' right now. 

Yeah. This is going to occupy my attention for a moment.
; )

Happy holidays to everyone...and if I don't write again before January, have a happy, happy New Year!

Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Why AD&D For Fantasy Adventure Gaming

Over at the "Classic Adventure Gaming" discord, there is a channel/thread with the subject title of this blog post.  The originator of the conversation had several questions they wanted addressed, including:
  • Why is it the Fantasy Adventure Gaming style prefers AD&D to other "old school" versions of the game? 
  • Is running a B/X game in the Adventure Gaming style possible? 
  • Is the Advanced Fantasy of OSE a reasonable middle ground? 
  • Is running a game RAW an element of Adventure Gaming? 
  • Any advice on how to sell AD&D to your players who like B/X for the simplicity?
This was posed back in November (when I was deep in the heart of Mexico), or I would have weighed in (duh). As is, most of what I would have said was rather sufficiently answered (and probably more succinctly and elegantly) than anything I would have written anyway.

And, yet, the subject continues to come up, in various shapes and forms: here was a comment recently posed on a different blog:
"...what’s the beef people have with OSE? It’s a retelling of BX using modern layout and publishing tools."
[this with regard to a criticism of OSE: Advanced being less-than-wonderful as a system for high level game play]

Of course, here at the B/X Blackrazor blog, I made my "reputation" (such as it is) in part by propping up the B/X system and extolling its virtues, long before there even was such a thing as "OSE" (close to ten years before, seeing as I started blogging circa 2009). So, I think it's safe to say I know some stuff about B/X play...the good and the bad. I think, if required, I could defend the system pretty well...the Basic edition of the game does have virtues, not the least of which include its clarity, accessibility, compactness, and simplicity. 

These are EXCELLENT things...for learning how to play D&D.

I now run AD&D exclusively (when I run games) even for new (i.e. "never have I experienced D&D") players. Not because it is clear, accessible, compact, or simple...first edition AD&D is NONE of those things. But none of those things matter to ME, because I already know how to play and (more importantly) how to RUN D&D. I know how to be a Dungeon Master. Can I be a better one? Absolutely...one can always get better at their craft. Experience, practice, self-evaluation/reflection, research...all these things go into honing one's skills (not just running and managing players, but building worlds and scenarios and running campaigns). It is an on-going process of refinement. If I am judged a "better DM" than others (I won't make that claim myself), it is ONLY because I've been doing it longer. There are PLENTY of DMs out there that have been doing it longer than me, who are smarter than me, who have been more consistent than me. But I know that I am competent...and I think that most people should be able to obtain a solid degree of competence with a few decades of practice; I am not unique in this regard.

SO...part of being a competent DM is knowing how to run the game at table. And running the game at table OFTEN involves picking up the slack for players. It is not imperative for players to know all the rules of the system (though the best players will have a high degree of knowledge/mastery when it comes to game mechanics). However, it IS imperative...heck, essential...that the DM has a good grasp of the game concepts and how they function. Which is one of the reasons the original B/X (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh) edition of D&D is so darn good...it provides ALL THE TOOLS NEEDED for a beginning Dungeon Master to 'learn the ropes:' clarity, accessibility, compactness, and simplicity. You have a Basic book of 64 pages (with plenty of examples) describing the most elementary concepts of a very complex game, and then an Expert book of 64 pages (most of which is simply new CONTENT...spells, monsters, treasure, extended tables...not CONCEPTS) to fill in a few additional "blank" spots in the game. These are GREAT TOOLS...for learning how to play D&D.

Everyone needs to learn how to play somehow. Learning to play as a player is "a piece of easy, chummer" so long as you have a competent DM running the game; most folks content to play a PC have little need to crack a rule book at all, except as a reference. The lack of actual nuts-n-bolts mechanics (saves, combat tables, etc.) in the original PHB may have simply been Gygax acknowledging the way MOST players approach the game: the DM is going to tell them their "target numbers" for dice rolls (or what followers are going to be available, etc.), what they need to know is how close they are to leveling up, and what new capabilities such leveling will convey to their character (in terms of hit dice, spells, skill percentages, etc.). The PHB is a lovely reference...and everything a (1E) player really needs as a reference.

Learning to be a Dungeon Master is a different story. It requires reading (and knowing and understanding) the rule books. I will argue (strenuously) that it's not something you just "pick up" from watching other DMs at the table or...worse!...from videos on Ye Old Internet. Such viewing can CLARIFY certain concepts, but you have to read the damn book. You have to know the game to run the game, and the knowing comes from reading (and learning) the rules which (surprise!) are found in the rulebook.

The B/X rules are short. Even at 64 pages, Moldvay's book includes...roughly...thirty-three pages of instructional text, of which at least five pages are EXAMPLES of: character creation, encumbrance, x.p. calculation, combat, dungeon design, and running a session. So, 27-28 pages of instruction? Is that too many? I don't think so...but I'm an old man who grew up reading books from a young age. If you want to learn how to be a Dungeon Master for the greatest game ever penned, I think that an afternoon or evening's reading seems like a small price to pay for the opportunity.

'Great, JB. We get it. SO...why then make AD&D your staple for adventure gaming? Why not just run Labyrinth Lord or OSE, or (even) "OSE Advanced" if you miss the inclusion of illusionists and beholders? Why insist on running 1st edition? What gives man?!'

B/X is a GREAT game...for learning to play D&D. But for running the game long-term, it is my opinion that you need a more robust game system. I have written about it at length before, but those posts are divided over many topics. Let's see if I can collate them here.

First you have to get on-board with a premise: that the game is at its best when run in the form of a long-term campaign. That means: there is a (fictional) world that PCs adventure in, that is sustained over time and that exhibits consistency. That PCs advance in level and thereby have opportunities to experience MORE content and adventure. If you can't buy into that premise, it doesn't matter what system you're running nor (probably) what game. 

SO, assuming you buy said premise, you need a system that sustains long-term play. And that is NOT just a matter of "bonus content." It's not just about adding additional levels of spell-casting or a larger selection of treasure and magic items or extra, more powerful monsters. If that was all there is to it then, sure, OSE Advanced might be your huckleberry. After all, it adds more content to OSE: AD&D classes, AD&D monsters, AD&D magic-items, etc.

But it's not the content (alone) that makes a game suitable for long-term play. Does OSE Advanced address issues of PC survivability that allows sustained play and advancement over time? AD&D does, adding clerical spells at 1st level (and bonus spells for WIS), increasing HD dice types, reducing penalties for low ability scores, adding rules for negative HPs, and increasing weapon damage versus large-sized monsters. Does OSE Advanced address issues of game economy, by adding x.p. and g.p. values for magic items, instituting training costs, and monthly expenses as AD&D does? Does OSE Advanced add systems that increase or promote verisimilitude like urban encounters, disease, racial relations (between sentient humanoids), discussions of medieval politics and taxes, folklore remedies and dungeon trappings? Does OSE Advanced introduce cosmological considerations, outer planes, interactions between clerics and their deities, dimensional cross-overs for even wilder fantasy adventures...as well as getting down to the nitty gritty of troop movements and costs for traditional war gamers?

Perhaps OSE Advanced DOES do all this? I honestly don't know, as I don't own the OSE Advanced books. But I know that 1st Edition AD&D does all this...and it does so in two books (the PHB and the DMG), one of which is 126 pages (and mostly "reference material:) and the other of which is 240 pages...of which more than half is non-instructional material: tables and charts and treasure descriptions and random dungeons and appendices and glossary and index and (repeated) cheat sheets.

SO...100 or so pages of DM-facing rules? For a system that supports long-term, sustained campaign play?

OSE Advanced Fantasy Player's Tome is 248 pages. OSE Advanced Fantasy Referee's Tome is 248 pages.  Sure, much of that latter book includes the monster manuals...got to have more content!...but does it have the oomph to use that content? And even if it did...which I'm not sure it does...why not just stick with my 1E PHB and DMG? Their page count means they take up less space in my backpack when I take them on the road.

There are other advantages to using 1E. It is OLD and it is MODULAR. There is a LOT of material that has been written for it over the years. I don't use the Unearthed Arcana or the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide or the Manual of the Planes...but I could. I don't use the vast majority of suggestions and variants and house rules found in the pages of Dragon magazine...but I could. In general, I have enough experience with the system that it's not necessary for me to consult the plethora of grey-beard AD&D players that exist in various forums and discord channels and chat groups...but I could, if I needed to do so. Those resources are available, which are great aids for would-be DMs trying to get better at their craft.

"But JB, those books (the PHB and DMG) are so OLD! And clunky! And crunchy! Hell, they aren't even SOLD anymore!" Oh, wait. Yeah...they are. 

But okay, let's talk about "crunch." I know several folks via the blog-o-sphere who will swear up and down that they run a B/X or (more usually) a BECMI or RC game, and have for years...long-term, campaign play...using nothing more than the simpler, stream-lined rules these Basic games provide. That, in fact, they do not want additional complexity. And these are guys older than me, with more years of experience...competent, veteran Dungeon Masters. Why? Why does it work for them?

I cannot say...I haven't played in their games. I could speculate, but instead I'll focus on the question at hand: "Why choose AD&D?" I can only discuss (with confidence) why I choose AD&D. For on-going campaign play, I want a robust system, designed in conjunction with that "added content." For me, a B/X fan, AD&D functions better and for a longer time than the Basic alternative.

As said (at the start of this post), I have played a LOT of B/X...at home, on the road, in campaigns, at conventions, in my youth, and as an adult, with family, friends, and complete strangers. What I have found is that...as written...the game does not sustain play over the long-term. Rather, the system becomes a source of frustration. 

Now some folks would say: "just add the changes you need to add to make the system sustainable." And that's fine advice. However, in practice what I find is that I simply end up adding pieces from AD&D. EXCEPT THAT a "patch" doesn't work as well as simply using the rule with the system for which it was designed and (presumably) play-tested. 

I could use the treasure tables from the DMG, the classes and spell lists from the PHB, the monsters in the MM...but then why not just play 1E? I like that fighters improve in hitting at every level. Why not 'port the combat matrix into my B/X game? Why? Because I can simply play 1E and discard the extra books.

Why play AD&D? Why NOT play AD&D? What is the issue? That it's hard to find the specific rules you're looking for in the book? Because it's "poorly organized" (the common complaint)? It still has an index and a table of contents; it still has quick reference sheets at the back of the book. I don't know, fella...I have little problem finding info I need within the book. And it's easy enough to create my own cheat sheets (if needed). So...what else? You don't like the artwork? You don't like Gygax? I mean, what is it, really?

A lot of folks talking these days about ACKS and (the soon-to-be-published) ACKS II. Okay. I picked up ACKS: it's a 270 page book that takes B/X and adds some extra elements to extend game play, specifically (what is commonly referred to as) domain play for high level characters. Fine and dandy. But AD&D's system, the way it's written, extends "standard" adventure play into high levels, while giving you options for that "domain stuff." To be clear, a lot of ACKS "extras" can be seen as having their precursors in AD&D. And so I ask again: why not just play AD&D? Because you want a single, enormous book to flip through? Because you want new art? Because you don't like the occasional Gygaxian digression into statistical analysis or flanking maneuvers from his war-game days?

Okay.

So sorry folks. So sorry this post is so long, and that I've taken up so much of your time. After all, none of this is terribly important anyway...the most important thing is (of course) that you play, regardless of what you choose to play and/or what your reasons are for playing the system you choose. Hopefully, I have managed to communicate my reasons (for those who are so interested) and this will be an issue I don't have to address again in the future. Hopefully. 
; )

Thursday, December 7, 2023

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!
; )

Friday, June 16, 2023

AD&D Training

Another "Friday fun post" extravaganza...that I have about 50 minutes to write before I need to pick up my kids (last day of school). 

*sigh* Why do I get myself into these things?

[actually, I know the reason. Playing, running, thinking about, and discussing Dungeons & Dragons is about the only thing that keeps me somewhat sane these days]

Over at the Pedantic Gaming discord server, there was a little bit of a 'back-and-forth' over a statement or two made by moi regarding AD&D training costs in which I wrote (in part):
I do not fault a person using the training costs...they function fine. They become less necessary (or easier to fine tune) with strong world building. Doing away with them completely withOUT the world building, however, can lead to collapse...which is one of the reasons Basic games (B/X, RC, BECMI, etc.) are not suitable for long-term campaign play without extensive modification/addition.
This as an addendum to the fact that I don't use training costs in my game these days.

Naturally this led to some pushback from some and (amusingly) others coming to my defense from inference that I was using Gygax's stipilation (p. 86 of the DMG) that "training must be conducted under the tutelage of a character of the same class and profession...the tutor might possibly accept some combination of gold and service for his tutelage, at the DM's option" to justify that Little Ol' Me was still playing By The Book, RAW, and simply tying players into NPC factions/organizations through "service."

Nope. I just don't require training for characters to advance in level. When they earn enough x.p. they get the new level, new abilities, new hit points...just automatically.

As this will no doubt cause consternation to some, I thought maybe I should take a moment to elaborate on the WHY of my excising this (fairly fundamental) part of the Advanced D&D game.

A while back (August of last year) there was a lively discussion at Princes blog about the various "upkeep" costs foisted on AD&D players; at the time I wrote the following, specifically with regard to training:
Anthony Huso is as big a proponent of Rules As Written as anyone on the internet, and even he has modified training costs…he uses the same rate, but in SILVER pieces, rather than gold. For me, I’ve tried running training As Written, I’ve tried using it with (Huso’s) silver mod, I’ve tried running it with ONLY for characters wanting to learn new spells or special abilities, and (at this point) I’ve dispensed with training costs completely. 
Here’s the thing about AD&D training: it’s not really about sucking $$ out of the players’ coffers. Let me repeat that: TRAINING IS NOT A MECHANIC FOR SUCKING MONEY OUT OF THE PLAYERS. Especially as characters progress in level, training costs become MINUSCULE compared to the amount of treasure coming into the party. 

Training costs exist to SLOW THE PROGRESS OF THE CAMPAIGN. Advanced D&D is designed for the “long haul” campaign. Training draws out game play by 1) extending the length of time PCs explore/experience low levels (as they have to acquire enough treasure to level up), and 2) by forcing PCs to experience periods of inaction (i.e. taking them out of active play for weeks while training).

Why do we want to enforce periods of inactivity? Because it is assumed the game will still continue AND SO the player with the missing PC will have to CREATE A NEW PC FOR ACTIVE PLAY. Why is this desirable? Because it keeps the game “fresh” for the player! Playing a cleric for some dozen+ levels is likely to get tiring…but when the cleric has to train that allows the player to break out his/her halfling thief or elven fighter-mage! As the campaign goes on, MOST players will develop a stable of different characters…some favorites and foundational pieces of the campaign, some just to be played for a lark now and then. AD&D is designed to be played in the LONG FORM…and training rules are one of the things that help this go.

Why don’t I use “training costs” in my own game? Because I don’t need to at this point in time. My players are young enough that EVERYTHING about the AD&D game is interesting (and difficult) enough to keep them enthused. They’re also dying a lot and thus creating new PC types so they’re getting lots of chances to play different things…but generally, 6 months SEEMS like a super-long time for a kid of 11 years, unlike a 30/40-some year old adult. At this point, I’m not interested in “slowing down” the game play…I’m making up for lost time (the years when I didn’t have an AD&D campaign going).
And this remains my stance. However, I'd like to elucidate even further:

My campaign is just that: an on-going campaign. While I seed my game world with various "dungeons" cribbed from published adventure modules, I'm not running the thing in truly episodic fashion (i.e. you go to a dungeon, 'complete' the adventure, then go to the next dungeon). Instead, my players live in the campaign world. There is "adventure" between every dungeon, within every town and village, on the road, etc. just as a matter of existing in the imaginary environment. My game is always "on;" it doesn't focus on the highlights of a delve, players are under no (out-of-game) geas to participate in an adventure, and they can leave adventure sites at any time. Likewise, the PCs are free to podunk around in a town or wilderness section as much as they want, exploring the world...though, as a DM, it is my job to offer hooks and incentives that are enticing enough they don't linger over-long.  And fortunately, players being players, they tend to bite at ANY adventure hook...because, in an Advanced game world, PCs are always short of money and looking for the next "big score."

Consequently, PCs are often 'on safari' and nowhere near a place where one might find a tutor, training hall, "adventuring guild," or whatever when they come to a point of leveling up. If I'm running I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City and the players have bivouacked in a ruined building while exploring the place, who is going to train them? If they are in the middle of the Desert of Desolation when they hit their level cap are they forced to remain at 4th or 5th level when the dungeons still remaining to be plumbed are increasing in deadliness all around them?

For my game (YOU don't have to do this), I have the take that experience points earned represent just that: experience. And when a character hits a breakpoint, their level has been earned...no longer is the character the farmboy getting pwned by a lone sand-orc (Luke Skywalker) but now a more capable character with a bit better fighting ability a few more hit points, the ability to cast stronger enchantments...whatever. Advancement always involves a period of rest and reflection (i.e. at the end of a game session), but I don't force the PCs to return to town to engage in weeks of training. As I wrote: training is a method of regulating the pace of the campaign. And, at this point, I want my campaign to continue moving along at a steady clip.

Besides which, my players have enough money issues as is...I don't need to suck their purses dry.

As a precedent for my take, I refer to Gygax himself in module S4: Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, in which he wrote:
During the course of several games sessions, players may accumulate enough experience points to qualify for an increase in level. Because the caverns are so far from anyplace where characters can train, the DM may allow player characters to advance without prior training, provided that the quality of play has been very high...if you choose to allow player characters to advance in level without training, it should be because of their playing skill, and the special circumstance of this module. Advancement without training should be regarded as a reward for excellence, rather than as a normal part of the campaign.
Keeping in mind that S4 is no more "special" than say other extended adventure module (Gygax's own GD series, for example or I1 or I3-15), and that "quality of play" and "excellence" are wholly subjective measurements on the part of the DM (and, thus, arbitrary), I could take this as Gygax's implicit blessing to discard training altogether, regardless of his protestation that doing so shouldn't be a "normal" part of campaign play.

That is, I could take it that way...if I considered EGG's words sacrosanct. Which, really, I don't anymore (though I respect the hell out of him and [much of] his work). 

I run a fairly 'hard' campaign...at least, by the standards of the last 30 years or so. No fudging. Characters die regularly (sometimes in droves). Adventures are not "toned down;" big rewards mean big dangers (and vice versa) and players are pushed to risk themselves if they want big scores. SURVIVING, in my game, is evidence of "excellence" and "high quality of play." And even when a modicum of luck is involved...well, for the most part my experience has been that players make their own luck. And welcome to it...the bad luck always comes around, eventually!

SO...no. I don't require player characters in my AD&D game to train. All "training" occurred long before the characters set off on their first adventure, when they were learning the skills that made them 1st level adventurers. "Levels" earned by PCs are a measure of how experienced they are in their profession. The characters aren't learning new skills...they're simply getting better at the skills they've already learned.

All right. Happy Friday, folks.

Friday, May 12, 2023

What High Level D&D Looks Like

I can already tell I'm going to get in trouble for this post. Ah, well. No one reads blogs on Fridays, right?
; )

As my group gears up for another campaign start (the players need to generate PCs after our last TPK, and I need to find yet more low-level scenarios for 1st level characters...*sigh*), some questions arise in Ye Ol' Brain. Questions like: What's the aim here? What's the direction? Where do I hope to see the campaign go? What do I hope to accomplish with this thing? Why do I want to run a game at all?

To which the answer almost always comes back the same: I just want to play D&D.

What's the aim? Direction? Um...I don't really care. Where do I want to see the campaign go? I have no destination in mind. Accomplishments? It's just D&D.  My joy is in playing...and as a DM, "play" for me means creating a world and various scenarios/challenges for my players and then running those and seeing how they pan out. I am a mad god, with no ultimate divine plan...because, of course, I am not a TRUE God, and my life is as finite as any other human and will some day end. So I play to play. Because I enjoy it.  My players seem to enjoy my game (and why would they not when it is D&D, a magical realm of fantastic possibility, perilous danger, amazing rewards/loot). And so I run the game, hoping to see it last and last and last.

The world building is, thus, of paramount importance. Why? Because for a game to last it must have far more possibility and potential than what can be explored and consumed within the lifetime of the DM. Fortunately, our own world is a wonderful example of just how big a world can be. How many "adventures" (and misadventures) of large and small variety have you had in your own town? Or in towns that you've visited? Or wilderness areas outside of towns? And how many THOUSANDS or TENS OF THOUSANDS of towns and cities and wilderness areas have you NOT visited in your lifetime? Heck, I've been to Europe four or five times, visited three times that many cities (at least) on the continent and had amazing experiences, and that has barely scratched the surface of the possibilities...and all without a single combat encounter or larcenous incident.

This is why I can take an area as small as the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and British Columbia) and know that this TINY CORNER of planet Earth can provide all the "world" I need for the rest of my days. Throw in western Montana, parts of the California coastline, extraplanar adventures, and (possibly) some sort of "Underdark" like what you find in the classic "D" module series? There's far more than I could ever "finish;" far more than I'll ever probably need. My world map is set. Everything else is just keeping track of population points, resources, political factions (only if/as needed!) and "adventure sites" (i.e. dungeons). 

"Um...JB? You mentioned 'high level play' in your post title?"

Right, sorry...getting to that. My current world...the one I've been using since I started playing AD&D again (a couple years back), has yet to see high level characters as I define them. The players I've been working with are, after all, kids who are still learning the ropes of the game...but mainly it's just that 1E isn't a cakewalk game to play. Characters die...and with SMALL parties (less than six or seven characters), any single loss can lead to cascade failure and disaster. Eventually, some combination of skill and luck will enable a number of player characters to reach the higher levels, and once they do the "PC EcoSystem" will become much more stable and secure. They just haven't got there yet.

But I have seen high level campaign play in the past...both as a DM and a player. And with much talk about high level play being bandied about in recent months (both here and elsewhere), I thought I'd share my experiences, so that people can understand my perspective on this somewhat mythical level of play. 

BECAUSE...IF you share my joy of the game, and ARE committed to the long haul, and have a robust world that will LAST for the long haul, THEN with committed, determined players, you WILL eventually have high level PCs to deal with.

SO...there are two ways to end up with high level characters in your game: players "work them up" in standard fashion (aka The Hard Way), or they are "gifted" to players in the form of pre-gens or scenario specifics characters (which might be just one-offs or they might be allowed to linger in campaigns). I've run...and played...both types in past campaigns.

My first "campaign" lasted from circa 1982-1985 and mostly consisted of my friends and I learning to play the game (for the interested, I documented a rough history of my gaming history last June). I hesitate to even call it a proper campaign: much of it was dissociative, like a series of con-games...or FLAILSNAILS type adventures...with no common thread aside from the characters being used. Because our game started with B/X it was deadly but not punitive: resurrections didn't reduce CON for example, wishes did not age individuals and the DM (me) was fairly lenient with giving PCs means to reverse failures. However, there was NO world building to speak of, no real "town play" (just dungeons and wilderness), nothing for PCs to spend treasure on besides castles and specialist hirelings (B/X doesn't have upkeep and training costs).  Towards the end of this period, we began incorporating AD&D books into our game: high level spells, artifacts and relics, demon princes and arch-devils, etc. But the game was generally a mess...as one might expect from a bunch of pre-teen kids with little knowledge of the "real world" (history, geography, politics, economics, etc.). Just low-level D&D with bigger, fancier toys.

Still.  There were some beefy dungeons back then. And even uber-high level characters fear black puddings and rust monsters. No nerfing required.

In the fall of 1985, we decided to blow up the entire thing and start over from scratch using By The Book AD&D...as best we could. Characters started at 1st level and had to "work their way up." But, again, we didn't do much in the way of world building: a lot of "town adventures," but the towns were (mostly) nameless and unconnected other than by nameless roads. Mostly we were learning the AD&D rules, including the incorporation of the Unearthed Arcana. The campaign was short-lived...I would guesstimate my character earned a maximum of 300,000 x.p. over the course of the entire thing (and my PC was the most consistently played of all our group, now that we were sharing DM duties). That's only "mid-level" in my book...the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth was one of the last adventure modules we ran, and the party ended up abandoning the quest sometime in the upper caves. 

Sometime circa 1986ish (I'm guessing the summer, maybe fall), we started over a final time, and this time went hard. We used the World of Greyhawk map, but far less of its background/history, and our pantheon of gods were strictly Grecian (as had been the case since moving to AD&D). Characters initially had to be started at level one, although replacement PCs, brought in to fill out decimated parties, were allowed to start at higher levels as per Gygax's stipulations on page 12 of the DMG. Over the course of the next two+ years, these PCs DID reach high levels...my own character, started as a first level fighter, eventually became a bard in at least the high teens (16th+) range. That's well over a million x.p. earned, and while some of that was certainly acquired magically, he definitely lost levels to level drain as well. 

In all honesty, it is my experience in that final, grand campaign that provided most of my concept of what "proper" AD&D adventuring should look like. This was not a sit-down, weekly session with the same six friends kind of thing: the campaign was always "on," always being played. Whenever the DM was with one or more players...and had his/her books, dice, etc....and an idea, the game was run. Records were tracked (time and location) to ensure continuity, but this was not otherwise an 'organized' affair. Hell, a lot of our games were conducted over (landline) telephone, and we had party lines and three-way calling to enable this kind of activity.

Sure: the campaign started off with 3-4 players and a DM with some introductory scenario, in some small town. After a few small successes, the characters would move onto the next adventure "lead" to another town. Many of the characters in the campaign were reiterations of past characters...I played the same half-elf bard in all three of these campaigns (I don't believe he even reached bard status in the second campaign)...and thus many had established "backgrounds" and personality quirks even if we did minor tweaks (alignment was OFTEN changed) between re-boots. Anyway, with "known" characters...and being experienced players...many of us had ideas and ambitions of what we wanted to accomplish in the game world, and set out to achieve those ambitions. First, of course, there was always the need to make a little coin and get some levels under the belt, then we'd move on to grander schemes...often causing the party to drift apart.

However, since the game was always "on," this separation allowed all of us to adventure independently while still maintaining the same world. Players would have secondary (or tertiary) characters that could join a group when their "main" PC was doing magical research or building their fortress or whatever. We would eventually have a total of eight players participate at one time or another, four of whom were "regulars," and two of whom acted as co-DMs of the world.  That's EIGHT players...but the number of PLAYER CHARACTERS that showed up was more like three-four times (?) that. "Main PCs" (for lack of a better term), like my bard, were the major characters by dint of their high levels, which gave them access to considerable resources (hirelings and henchmen, magic items and money, hit points and spells, etc.)...of these, my PC was the closest thing to a high level "murder hobo" since, being a bard, he never settled down, never had henchmen, and was fairly self-sufficient with a wide range of abilities. But I was still DMing, too...usually with modules (I ran a pair of 12th level PCs through D1: Descent Yadda-Yadda, though they never made it to the Grand Cavern before chickening out).

Because AD&D scales so well, the game never devolved into cartoony, superhero D&D. Any character can fail a poison save. Any character can fall off a cliff or be assassinated or get hit with an arrow of slaying. BTB wizards (who should ALL have INT 18) are still extremely limited in the spells they know, unless they are actively pursuing spell books/scrolls OR spending a tremendous amount of treasure on research...and all the best spells have serious restrictions (expensive components or side effects like aging/system shock). Because it's a bit of a grey area we only reduced CON for raise dead and resurrection, but PCs wished back to life had no such loss...even so, that knocked out a lot of wishing rings and luck swords and we still had characters with CON drain (my PC must have been brought back to life seven or eight times). 

Even at high level, you STILL didn't traipse lightly into the Abyss to see what kind of treasure Jubilex (or whoever) had in his hoard...nether planar creatures will F you up in a Very Bad Way very quickly.  Adventures tended to be less "wahoo" gonzo and more grounded: rival baron with army is causing problems in your domain, or an unsullied Really Bad Dungeon so dangerous that any explorer under 10th level gets vaporized looking at it. You don't really need to nerf PCs when a dragon can strafe everyone in the party for 88 points of damage...that's a deterrent for dumb-dumb play right there.  So is grappling by hordes of 2HD humanoids (bullywugs are a good choice). So is energy drain. Hit points (and spells) always run out eventually. Yes, the fighter's armor class may be so low as to be un-hittable in melee...but there's no to hit roll needed for falling damage. And traps saved for half-damage will still whittle you down.

What you DO get with high level characters is the ability of PCs to operate far more independently of one another. No longer do you NEED to huddle together in groups of five to seven, pooling your resources and abilities. One high level PC...solo or accompanied by a pair of trusted henchmen...can make their own forays into forbidden cairns and tombs. And often they'll WANT to go solo: acting first to acquire some rare magic item or coveted spell scroll before another PC can acquire the same. As PCs become high level movers and shakers, it's not unusual to see more inter-player conflict as rivalries develop...which can work, sometimes, but isn't conducive for the long-term health of one's campaign.

[which is why I play with a strict, no-PVP policy these days]

But even with the ability to operate as independent agents, high level PCs can do MORE working together than apart. Yeah, invading the Demonweb Pits is probably a bad idea anyway, but it's a lot easier when you've got five or six stalwarts and as many lieutenants at your back. I've never run megadungeons myself, but I'd imagine you want as many spell batteries as possible when your group is pushing into the 6th (and deeper) levels below ground.

Regardless, in running a campaign that includes high level characters, it is important for the DM to provide carrots for the players to keep them engaged. GENERALLY SPEAKING, the world building by itself is the most important thing, because for long-term satisfaction, players must feel like they are having substantive impact on the imaginary environment and that is ONLY possible with a solid foundational setting. 

"Can I start a thieves guild?" Sure. "Can I run a tavern/brothel?" Yep. "Can I marry the prince, have him secretly killed and become Queen of the country?" Why not? All these things and more should be on the table for the enterprising player...and how they accomplish these goals IS the thing that becomes the adventure. High level characters have more grandiose dreams: my character, for example, wanted to become a deity and usurp Hades spot as the God of Death and the Underworld. It never happened for him (duh), but it was fun trying to figure out how one might go about doing it. As a DM of a long-running campaign with players who have put in the time and effort and earned their high levels you should expect...and be prepared!...for players to want to do more than look for the next 20-chamber labyrinth.

Because they'll want more. They always do. 

This is why the vast majority of the (very few) "high level" adventure modules fall into the range of fairly bad to nigh unplayable. High level characters are not only defined by their increased abilities and extraordinary gear, but by the relationship they've built over time with the campaign world. The constant interactions...necessary to achieve a high character level...over time embeds the character and builds them a place in the world's structure. I'm not just talking about strongholds and hideouts, but the relationships they build with the fantasy people (NPCs) of the world.

For example: the characters, mid-level (5th - 7th or thereabouts) get beat up pretty badly in some poorly thought-out venture. They have at least one or two beloved characters in need of resurrection, but they are far from the nearest city that might have a fundable patriarch (too far to arrive within the time limit of a raise dead spell). However, it just so happens that there is a rather seriously powerful druid (L13+ nearby) who is friendly to adventurers that are "forest helpers" (or non-orcs or whatever) who can give 'em some healing. 

And so they build a relationship with the archdruid (or whatever) and this EXTENDS their operating range as they can now push deeper into the wilderness, and...

Damn. Just got a call from my aunt. My 93 year old grandmother appears to be on her way to joining my mother in the Great Beyond. Ugh.

Sorry to cut the post short. The family and I are driving to Montana. I'll check in later.

Thursday, February 2, 2023

Tiers Of Play

Man, it's been a rough week or two. Or four. January...rough this year. Been pretty stressed; if I made a salty response or comment (here or on your blog) in the last few days...my apologies.

Okay. On with the show!

[oh, wait...yeah, I changed Ye Old Blog's layout a bit. Blogger is "easy" to use, but it's a bitch to adjust when you can't access the code and the options for manipulation are limited. Hopefully, people aren't having a hard time with the new look...more apologies for any inconvenience]

Over at Prince's, there was an announcement that the "goal" for this year's NAP III contest would be to explore the concept of play/adventures for high level characters, a woefully underdeveloped area of D&D gaming. This prompted much discussion amongst the commenters...both excitement and not-a-little trepidation.

There is...and has been for a long time...a dearth of D&D game play in the upper echelons of level range, at least amongst MANY of the folks 'round this neck of the woods (old edition D&D players). Which is a tad silly, considering how many YEARS this OSR ball has been a-rolling. Why silly? Because, with regular, committed game play, getting to a "high" level in D&D doesn't take that long...assuming, of course:

A) players are getting better at playing, and
B) DMs are providing adequate, regular opportunities for x.p. (i.e. treasure)

There are two AD&D campaigns currently going on in my household: one run by me, one run by my son. For a variety of reasons (mainly sheer busy-ness) we don't get as much time to play as anyone would like...maybe a couple/three times pre month?...the boy hasn't even run us since, I think, December or November.  Today, he'll be our DM.

[ah, jeez. Just found out Diego is sick with something...has a fever. Well, that throws a monkey-wrench in everything. Add more stress to the pile!]

Hmm. Well, today he was supposed to be our DM. *sigh*  

Anyway, despite that game playing infrequently, I've still managed to get my "main" PC to 5th level and a secondary PC to 4th. In MY campaign, the players started new 1st level characters, and the party ranger (a notoriously difficult class to level up) just hit 2nd level after three-ish sessions? That's withOUT an earned x.p. bonus (his ability scores don't meet the threshold for the +10%).

If we were to play regularly (which I'd consider four to six hours per week), I'd expect all players to be hitting mid-level in two to three months. By the end of the year (always assuming decent play and participation) I'd expect most...if not all!...of the players' main PCs to be starting to see the lofty heights of "high-level."

But what does that mean, exactly: High level? Mid level? There seems to be some confusion/consternation floating around in Ye Old Inter-Webs. Some folks consider anything above 7th level to be "high level;" I saw one commenter who considered 5th level to be "high." 5th? Not much room for a mid-tier there!

I think, perhaps, some definitions could help.

AD&D is the most robust of the old school systems, and (of the older editions) is best able to accommodate ALL scales of D&D play. In fact, I would argue it is DESIGNED to do so (compared to the Basic sets which were written to introduce new players to the game, or the OD&D rules which were a "first pass" at the creation of this new hobby). Plenty of monster, magic items, powerful spells and hostile environments (planar travel, anyone?) to challenge the highest tiers of character power.  However, there are (for me) clear delineations, or TIERS, of play.

Low-level play: 1st through 5th
Mid-level play: 6th through 11th
High-level player: 12th+

These are approximations. To measure in experience points, I'd tag a good breakpoint for "mid-level" at 50,000 x.p. and "high-level" at either 500,000 or 1,000,000 x.p. (depending on the individual campaign).

My measure for this is in terms of PC power/effectiveness which (in AD&D) can generally be equated to which magical spells are readily and easily accessed by an adventuring party with a good variety of character types. 

The mark of mid-level play is the ability to access 3rd level spells...easily and readily. 3rd level spells is the category when the troubles of low-level (beginning) adventurers start to lose their sting. In the cleric section we see spells like continual light (who needs torches?), create food & water (ditto rations!), cure disease (removing rot grub, green slime, giant rats), dispel magic (handy), glyph of warding (protect your safe room in the dungeon!), locate object (where was that stairway up?), and remove curse (obviously good). For the necromantically inclined, animate dead can turn those dead orcs into meat shields and/or treasure porters, and speak with dead gives PCs good intel on the dungeon.  Dungeon crawling, the meat and drink of low-level adventurers becomes far easier with a handful of these babies every day.

For the magic-user, the spell book really begins to open up with 3rd level spells. Certainly fireball and lightning bolt become wonderful crowd clearers and monster killers, but utility spells like fly, invisibility 10' radius, Leomund's tiny hut, tongues, and water breathing allow exploration possibilities that weren't previously available. Scouting becomes easier with spells like clairvoyance and clairaudience, and protection from normal missiles makes the party's wizard much more durable. Of course, spells like haste, slow, and hold person can provide huge advantages in fights...especially against numerous lesser opponents. 

However, it's not enough that the party cleric or wizard has only ONE of these spells. To be a true mid-level party, you need ready access...enough to sustain a significant delve or session. Four to six applications of 3rd level power is what you're looking for, with six to eight being even better. Once your players have access to that level of magical resource (and are smart enough to not simply stock "fireball x3") then you can look at the group as "mid-level."

In similar vein, I peg "high level" player to approximately 12th level. In truth, with decent players (and excellent magical equipment) 10th or 11th would be a fine breakpoint, as it is the ready access to 5th level spells that denotes high level play. 

But at 12th level, the kid gloves can finally come off.

5th level magic is the kind of stuff that breaks a lot of DMs poor little noggins. For clerics, we get spells like commune, dispel evil, plane shift, raise dead, and true seeing...spells that allow intel/recon without fear, spells that remove the sting of death, and spells that can banish even pit fiends back to their own planes (woe betide the player who feels cure critical wounds and flamestrike are the cleric's best spells of this magnitude). For magic-users, we gain access to cloudkill, conjure elemental. contact other plane, hold monster, magic jar, passwall, and teleport...some of the most powerful spells in the entirety of the game. Whole dungeons levels can be cleared by means of these spells...dungeon levels readily mapped with the use of the 4th level wizard eye spell. 

But 6th level magic (obtained at 11th level by clerics, and 12th level by magic-users) puts even these to shame. Clerics gain the ability to cast heal, which not only enable the curing of insanity and the instant recovery of hit points, but can also bring a raised character back to full adventuring strength (no waiting a week for recovery!). Find the path makes the objective of any dungeon quest far more easily accessible, and word of recall gives the character an instant "get out of jail free" card to return to his/her fortress (and EVERY cleric, by 11th level should have a stronghold staffed by loyal followers).  For magic-users, stone to flesh enables a party to recover from petrifaction, while reincarnate allows the wizard to act as an "emergency cleric" if the group's patriarch has been killed. Anti-magic shell, legend lore, death and disintegrate are all incredibly useful, and no wizard should be caught at sea without control weather in the repertoire.  Just having access to two or three of these 6th level spells can greatly extend the operational range of a high level party. 

Of course, any party that has a 12th level magic-user should (assuming equitable distribution of x.p.) include a 13th level thief (or 11th level in the case of a multi-classed demihuman).  13th level sees thieves with a 99% of moving silently, and 85%-99% chance of hiding in shadows (depending on race), and quintuple damage from a successful backstab. For a thief with a +3 short sword and an (off-hand) +2 dagger...not an unheard of combo...that's an average of 55 damage, enough to bring down a 12 HD monster (say, a fire giant) in a single go.

Fighter types of 10th and 11th level will generally have AC well below zero and hit points in the 60+ range (70+ for rangers) in addition to multiple attacks, and bonus spells (paladins and rangers). An 11th level paladin turns undead on the same column as a 13th level cleric, auto-turning wights, wraiths, ghouls, and ghasts and having a decent (better than 50%) chance against anything up through vampires. And rangers at high level gain IMMENSE damage bonuses versus evil humanoids, like giants. 

All of which is Good & Necessary. As I said, DMs need pull no punches when it comes to high level adventuring parties: greater demons and devils, giants, gorgons, mind flayers, purple worms and (duh) dragons all should be available as challenges for high level parties. Monsters that would result in TPKs if placed in adventures can finally hit the table without resentment; fiendish traps and magical curses can abound. Deep forays into the bowels of the earth...or the unknown of extra-planar realms...can occur. And the DM need not fear reprisal and hostility from the players. After all, this is what they've been working towards, over dozens of play sessions. It is the very reason to play the extended Dungeons & Dragons campaign.

Okay...that's enough to chew on for now. I hope to have a follow-up post that provides some helpful hints on transitioning players from one tier to the next. I feel like THAT is (yet another) subject solely lacking intelligent discourse and explanation.
; )

A typical LOW-level party.