Why Treasure

This post has been long in the making...only because I've been so concerned about getting it right. But that's probably an impossibility; let's just plow ahead, shall we?

I've written a lot about the importance of treasure in D&D over the last few years, but (weirdly) most of my best thoughts (I think) are scattered around the internet, either in the comments on other folks' blogs or...when actually posted here...fairly ancillary to whatever topic I'm discussing. There just doesn't seem to be a definitive post here that reflects my current thoughts on "treasure" in Dungeons & Dragons.

[yes, there are a lot of posts with the label "treasure" on Ye Old Blog, but most of these are magic items I've written for one system or another. Should probably go through and re-label those...]

The fact is, my thoughts on treasure have changed over the years, evolving even as I've reverted (game-wise) to an older...I mean really old...mindset. Sometimes...as I'm sure most geezers will tell you...things that ain't broke don't need to be fixed.

Though they can still be improved upon.

That in a second. A couple months back, Adam from Barking Alien shot me an email asking me to consolidate my thoughts on why treasure is awesome, in order to dispute my thoughts in good-spirited debate. My succinct explanation (as much as I am ever “succinct”) included the following reasons: 

• As an object, “treasure” (gold coins, jewels, etc.) is easily understood and recognized by players. 
• As a goal, treasure acquisition is an objective, measurable means of success. You’re not worried about what may constitute (for a particular DM) “good roleplaying,” humor awards, etc. 
• For a GROUP of individual players, it provides a UNIFYING objective; if they all want treasure, they can work (together, cooperatively) to acquire it. 
• As a target objective, it invites a multitude of ways to accomplish the objective (stealth, trickery, negotiation, combat, etc.). When experience is only awarded for combat (as in 3E and 4E D&D, for example) there is only a single means of advancement (fighting), limiting the overall game experience. 
• As a “tangible” objective of play (the imaginary characters must pursue it), it encourages proactivity on the part of the players to gain the reward. Passive reward systems (XP for participation, for example) do not encourage proactivity; they provide no game-related impetus/motivation for action. 
• With regards to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (first edition) specifically, treasure is tied directly to the game economy (it’s needed for hirelings, training, equipment replacement, magical research, tithes and fees, construction, etc.) providing REINFORCEMENT of the reward system (we need money – we need to adventure – we acquire money – we spend money – we need money) leading to perpetual long-term play and character/campaign development. 

All this appears to baffle BA (or “perplex,” to use his own word), but he seems to not understand this only pertains to the Dungeons & Dragons game, not to other fantasy adventure games like Star Trek or DC Heroes (he cites Captain Kirk and Superman specifically as individuals unmotivated by money). D&D has a specific premise, rather neatly laid out in the first paragraph of Moldvay’s Basic book: 

In the D&D rules, individuals play the role of characters on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune. Characters gain experience by overcoming perils and recovering treasures. As characters gain experience, they grow in power and ability. 

If that ain’t your bag then there’s not much reason to play D&D. If you don’t play a group of characters “in search of fame and fortune”…well, that’s kind of what D&D is all about. 

But, of course, it’s about more than just that. There’s the “fame” part, too…but pride and envy, the driving forces behind fame-seekers, are just as base as the greed and avarice that drive individuals in search of riches. 

Except they doesn’t. Not always. Sometimes it’s necessity. 

[I’m reminded of the Sarojini Naidu quote: “it costs a lot of money to allow Gandhi to live simply”]

MONEY, one of the many things D&D’s treasure represents, is something that many folks have issues with. Some people want more of it; some people hate needing it; some people do terrible things in the name of acquiring it; some people use it against others. All sorts of negative emotions are attached to this thing we call “money.” 

In actuality, money is just a convenient means of exchange. It has been described as a tool, a weapon, a type of energy, and “the root of all evil,” but it’s just a means of exchange. Other things have been turned to evil purposes…including love and desire…just as easily and as often. Well, maybe not AS “easily and often” as money…but easily and often enough.

The point is: it's easy to have a negative attitude towards something that, at its base, is simply a means of exchanging goods and services for other goods and services...money is a convenient and oft-used punching bag given as an excuse for the exploitation and manipulation perpetrated by humans against humans. But D&D really isn't about capitalism or colonialism (despite having a few of those trappings). It's about adventurers seeking fame and fortune. The "dungeons" and "dragons" of the title indicate where those adventurers seek those things: fame (for heroic deeds) and fortune (in the form of treasure) is acquired through the delving of dangerous adventure sites and facing fantasy monsters. 

[and with an ADVANCED attitude, these things can be expanded to the point that the entire campaign world becomes a "dangerous adventure site" suitable for adventure and achievement of fame and fortune]

In another recent post of mine I explained two of four possible priorities of RPG play are being challenged and genre exploration. Dungeons & Dragons, as originally conceived, is not about genre exploration. Oh, I can see how one might mistake it for an exploration of the classic "hero's journey" monomyth...and, in fact, one can see the times where D&D designers tried to pawn this off on gamers over the years (beginning with 2nd edition AD&D). But it was only able to do this once fantasy began to eat its own; i.e. once the fantasy literature being published began to ape D&D and inform gamers' assumptions about the game (which is to say, after TSR found they could make more money as a publishing house than as a game designer and started flooding the fantasy fiction market with self-referencing trash). But that's not how it was built. It's not designed to "tell stories," all post-1987 rhetoric to the contrary.

Let's come back to Adam's points for a second: not because I'm trying to beat him up but because I think his points represent the opinions of many other RPG players, especially players of D&D that began with a latter edition that de-emphasized the value of treasure (both literally and as a game mechanism). Adam wants to play games that tell heroic stories with characters motivated by something other than money...he cites Captain Kirk and Superman as two prime examples. But look at those two universes: in neither one does money have any value! Economy is not an issue in a fantasy world where your ship provides all the food and energy you need or where the Man of Steel can simply squish lumps of coal into diamonds (or where Batman and Robin are so wealthy as to render money no consideration at all). 

Economy and money...as a means to survival...is a prime consideration in MANY genres one might want to explore. Money is definitely a motivation for the crew of Firefly, and for the Ghost Busters, and for most stories of the western genre. I haven't read Moorcock's Corum or Hawkmoon, but money is a consideration for Elric once he sets off to explore the Young Kingdoms (as Moonglum constantly reminds him). 

The only genre that routinely disregards money are one that provides "mission based" objectives: for example the Mission Impossible/James Bond spy thriller or the superhero "villain of the week" that must be dealt with or the city/world/universe will be wrecked. But such mission-based RPGs aren't conducive to the sort of long-term play that I consider the strength of the medium; they are short-term play at best, better served for one-shots and con play (where the immediacy of the mission is a plus) as, in my experience, they tend to peter out very quickly. 

[adventurers motivated by "revenge" fall into this category]

"Living" in a fantasy world long-term generally requires some sort of economy for the game to have any kind of meaning. Even in a setting like Star Wars; certainly waging a guerrilla war against a galactic empire requires a lot of resources: guns, ammunition, manpower, ships, fuel, provisions, etc. These things cost money, and it's hard to pay for things out of the space princess's bank account when her planet's been blown up. Ignoring the necessity of acquiring money renders the campaign a paltry thing...unless you're concerned with something other than the escapist fantasy experience RPGs can offer (for example, exploring group dynamics between characters of widely disparate backgrounds).

Keeping this in mind...that money is just a medium of exchange and a necessity of survival...one can see that many of the issues that perplex Adam don't really wash:

It is a simple, common, base desire/need that isn't heroic. 

Ensuring survival is certainly a common challenge, but acquiring money...sufficient money…may not be simple at all, and may require thrilling heroics, according to the situation.

It isn't noble, emotionally driven, and serves no greater purpose beyond personal gain. 

Depending on the use for which money is put, all this may be patently false. Money CAN be put to noble use, its acquisition may be coldly clinical (or driven by emotions other than greed), and can definitely be spent in ways that facilitate a "higher purpose."

Making it the primary goal promotes envy, greed, and distrust. It can divide the group. 

Even in Dungeons & Dragons, having treasure as an objective (in my experience) fails to have this effect. Treasure generally unites the party in a common objective in a way that multiple disparate motivations seldom do, thus instilling a spirit of cooperation. Monetary treasure is generally divided evenly at the end of an adventure/session with all surviving party members getting an equal share, and I've often observed surprising magnanimity in players after pulling a rich haul, as they bestow bonuses and choice items on trusted henchmen and cherished NPCs. The main thing I've seen "divide" a D&D group is a magic item of surpassing power that multiple PCs argue over...but that's not a "money" issue.

It is never enough, partly because no reward is as epic as described in stories or art. 

This is rather a feature of D&D play (as I stated above) as the continual need for money in a "living" economy sets up a feedback loop that spurs and motivates a proactive search for more adventure opportunities, thus allowing play to continue in perpetuity.

If genre appropriate, Treasure would end the story. Filthy rich PCs need not adventure.

It really depends. Leave aside (for example) the fact that The Hobbit is story, a modern fairy tale, written with a beginning, middle, and end already in mind (leave aside also the argument that the goal of the protagonist is to find his own courage and sense of excitement/adventure outside of a rather staid existence, and that the treasure isn't really the point). If it were, in fact, based on an actual RPG campaign, one can see there is far more complexity and adventure that can occur even after acquiring the hoard of Smaug. Towns must be repaired, gifts must be given to allies, the logistics of carrying wealth back to the Shire across miles of orc and troll infested wilderness (not to mention the costs that must be paid out in hiring a baggage caravan with beasts of burden, drovers, drivers, and guardsmen) will provide an enormous...and expensive!...venture in and of itself. There is a good reason Bilbo only takes two small chests of loot with him when he leaves Lonely Mountain...only as much as his pony can carry.

[and, again...the acquisition of wealth wasn't the point of his story anyway]

But fairy tales are fairy tales and (as I've written elsewhere) RPGs are designed to be played and experienced, not fed to us through our senses like a film or novel. It requires a collective and interactive imagination...and as smarter minds than mine have pointed out, the older we get the more mature our imaginings become. And I don't mean "mature" in the NC-17 meaning. We have more life experience upon which we can draw and we can concern ourselves with the "burden" of a meaningful campaign filled with the logistics and challenges of a humongous dragon hoard.

I will not argue against the complaint that the awarding of experience points (and, thus, increased character effectiveness) for wealth is a simplification. But as an expedient mechanic, it works magnificently in practice and symbolically represents exactly what the game purports to model: adventurers hunting for fortune and fame. The D&D universe is akin to the world of Sinbad the Sailor, a hero among heroes and as wealthy as a sultan (if not the Caliph) by the end of his seven voyages. If that's not to your liking, that's fine and dandy. But if you don't understand the type of heroic adventure (like the  Sinbad stories) that originate the "D&D genre" you are bound to be perplexed in perpetuity.

FWIW: I find the system of advancement in Chaosium's games (Stormbringer, ElfQuest, Cthulhu, etc.) to be the most realistic method of modeling increased effectiveness. But I prefer the streamlined, less-fiddly system of D&D to Chaosium, giving me more room to attend to and concentrate on the game I'm running. And, again, D&D's system of advancement (XP for levels) ties directly into the premise of the game.

All right. I think that's enough for now. However, I do have more to say about treasure...but it veers away from the particular topic at hand (the "WHY" of treasure) into tangential topics. Later, gators.

S is for "Sanctuary Light"

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for this year's #AtoZchallenge? Revamping the Grand Duchy of Karameikos in a way that doesn't disregard its B/X roots. I got behind by a couple days because of the Easter weekend, but I'm trying to catch up as quickly as possible]

S is for "Sanctuary Lite," AKA Specularum, capital of Karameikos.

What do I mean, "Sanctuary Light?" Well, first you have to be familiar with Robert Asprin's old Thieves World anthology series...if you're not (and if you dig pulpy fantasy), I'd encourage you to check out the books, at least the first two volumes. Asprin had an idea to create a shared setting that multiple authors could use for their characters, a vehicle for fiction that wouldn't require individual authors to conceive of an entire organic fictional world, history, etc. but one that would grow and develop based on each person's writing contributions. Sanctuary is the name given to the rotten city at the core of the Thieves World setting, the place where the characters mingle and adventure and engage in their illicit activities.

A "hell hound" intimidates
a(nother) local.

I haven't yet gotten around to describing my relationship with the Thieves World books and how they influenced and affected my gaming style and assumptions "back in the day;" the TW books provided one of the three distinct "paths" I alluded to waaaay back in July (sorry I haven't had the chance to return to the topic). The "product" I refer to in that post is Chaosium's Thieves World box set, which is a fairly astounding resource (for a number of reasons). I will try to blog about Asprin's books specifically...and the game content based on those books...but it's going to have to wait a little while longer.

[sorry]

Anyway, having spent extensive time reading the various source texts for Specularum, I can't help but notice the many similarities between the Grand Duchy's capital and the city of Sanctuary. This is especially true of Allston's version (i.e. the version presented in GAZ1) which, strangely, bears little resemblance to the layout and presentation of the city as given in Dave Cook's earlier B6: The Veiled Society. Cook's map places Specularum directly on the coast, with the "Mirror Bay" being directly south of the city. Allston's map places the capital on the west bank of the large Volaga (Highreach) River, with the Mirror Bay an opening off the river...a set-up that, now that I look at it, doesn't really make sense for a thriving coastal capital. What the f--- ?!

[oh, wait...here's a map that shows "Specularum Harbor" with "Mirror Bay" in parentheses...but this map of Specularum proper has a separate "Mirror Bay" off the river behind a Seagate. Ugh...either I am confused or the folks making the maps for the Gazetteer failed to compare notes...]

Well, whatever. It's the content of Specularum that reminds me of Sanctuary. Sanctuary has the native Ilsig people (repressed by the distant Ranke Empire); Specularum has the native Traladrans (conquered by Thyatis). Sanctuary has the Maze, the Bazaar, and the Golden Lilly; Specularum has the Nest, the Great Market, and the Black Lilly. Sanctuary has the new (Ranke) temples and state religion competing with the old (Ilsig) temples in the temple district; Specularum has the Church of Karameikos competing with and upstaging the Church of Traladara.  True, the new governor of Sanctuary (Prince Kadakithis, the emperor's brother) is a much more recent ruler than that of Specularum (Archduke Stefan, the emperor's friend)...but the resentment of the longtime residents (and the naivete of their new overlord) is still the same. So is the flourishing (fantasy) Gypsy fortunetellers that populate the region. Heck, even the population is similar (officially 4500, estimated at more than 20,000 uncounted).

[oh, and hill folk...Sanctuary has lots of those wandering around]

But I call Specularum "Sanctuary Light" because it's not nearly as dark and dirty as the pulpy setting of the Thieves World anthology. Specularum doesn't have brothels...it has "notorious inns." Sanctuary has the Hell Hounds...Specularum has the "Elvenguard." The Veiled Society is a shadowy group that inspires fear; the Hawk Masks operate in broad daylight as muscle and mercenaries. And while Specularum is described by Allston as "a crowded, noisy, dirty place - the epitome of the medieval city," Sanctuary goes into deep detail, describing the filth and squalor, the terrible living conditions of the majority and the manner in which the "haves" happily exploit the "have nots."

To put it another way, the appearance of Emirikol the Chaotic on the streets of Specularum would certainly send up a hue and cry for the town guard...in Sanctuary, he'd be yet one more wandering sorcerer best left alone by the general populace.

This is to be expected of the difference in time and style for which both products were written. GAZ1 was written for BECMI at a time when TSR was deep in the process of making D&D more "family friendly" (especially the non-Advanced version of the game); Thieves World was created in 1979 for sword & sorcery-styled fiction writers to dink around in. Whatcha' expect?

Tell you what though: considering that MOST of the authors from the first couple Thieves World anthologies can be found on the "Inspirational Source Material" list of B/X (page B62)...including Robert Asprin, Paul Anderson, Phillip Jose Farmer, Andrew Offutt, and C.J. Cherryh...I'd say that one of the easiest ways to make Specularum more "B/X" in flavor, would be to simply turn up the dials to "full Sanctuary" rather than the light version.

You can easily substitute Sanctuary's map for Specularum (it resembles Cook's town layout more than Allston's)...simply rename the White Foal river the Volaga. The governor's palace becomes the duke's, and everything else remains as named in Sanctuary.

Pretty close to the Chaosium map;
less detail, though.

It would certainly solve the issue of PCs' "magical training" (wandering sorcerers leaving untrained dropping litters of poorly trained apprentices on the street like alley cats). I don't think you need to substitute the 19-year old "Kitty Kat" for Stefan to complete Specularum's transformation, but I think it would be cool to add the Ranke political situation to written background of Thyatis (making the Archduke's move a "self-exile in lieu of possible assassination" type of maneuver), and make his assumption of leadership a RECENT event rather than an established one. Have the Duke residing in Specularum for, say, five years or so, rather than 30, with all his family being Thyatian-born (and hating on the new digs).

Yes, Karameikos does lack the deserts...but deep, dark forests infested with monsters can make for a pretty hazardous terrain. And I'd rather have inscrutable, dangerous elves substituting for the "aloof desert nomad" Reggah...let's break some stereotypes instead of promoting them, huh? Of course, antisocial elves do not make for uber-loyal soldiers, but I wanted to ditch the Elvenguard anyway. I'd rather have Hell Hounds any day of the week.
; )

Armor Thoughts

The following is a bit of a thought exercise.

There are lots of different ways to handle personal (body) armor in an RPG. Most folks probably already get that, but...well, it feels like a necessary disclaimer before I start. D&D's "armor class" concept is a popular one (at least judging by the number of system knock-offs that continue to use it), despite certain problematic aspects of the mechanic.

Conceptually, personal armor is supposed to prevent personal injury. The usual way this gets modeled in a fantasy game includes one (or some combination) of the following mechanics:

1. Reducing the chance that an opponent can inflict injury at all.
2. Reducing the actual injury inflicted by an opponent's successful attack.
3. Providing additional "health levels" (whatever form that takes) to the person wearing it.
4. Providing a "saving throw" against damage to the person wearing it.

Additional considerations include how the use of a shield or personal agility/prowess might factor into armor, the deterioration of armor from wear-n-tear, specific hit locations versus general defense, and the usefulness of armor in preventing non-combat type injuries (like falling off a cliff, or protecting its wearer from traps and hazards).

[I may be forgetting something...it's 2:30am my time...but that's about all the iterations I can think of at the moment]

All armor systems "work" (i.e. they are functional game mechanics), but folks have different preferences when it comes to picking a specific system. System preference is based (or, IMO, should be based) on a combination of two things: personal perception of armor (perhaps changing with regard to genre), and playability (how easily it works as a game mechanic).

D&D's system (a "Type 1" mechanic) has a long history of eliciting gripes and complaints from people who have a different perception of armor and how armor should function/model. However, D&D's system is eminently playable...from a mechanic standpoint, it is incredibly simple to use in play, incredibly easy to grasp (even for new players), and incredibly quick to resolve. Its playability...and familiarity...are what has led to its staying power and proliferation across other fantasy RPGs.

Heck, its playability is probably what led to it supplanting the Chainmail combat system as the default combat system for D&D; the "D20-versus-AC" system was an alternate combat system in the pages of Men & Magic, remember? But Chainmail's personal combat system was an add-on to a mass combat war game...an afterthought for occasional "small battles and castle sieges" (when, I presume, you would have narrow battlements ramparts to defend).

But let's, for a moment, consider another fantasy RPG with war-game roots that does armor in a different flavor: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

Where "dungeon crawl" =
"pub crawl" + weapons

While WFRP contains elements of Dungeons & Dragons, I think it's pretty clear it's descended from different roots than Chainmail/D&D. Sure it has elves and dwarves and halflings and orcs...these are things taken from Tolkien (the same place D&D gets them). But nearly all of its systems come from (or have their genesis in) the Warhammer Battle war game, just as D&D takes its cues from Chainmail (including magic, saves, attacks, monsters, etc.). Combat in WFB is D6 based and WFRP is D% + D6 based (if I'm remembering correctly). However, it has quite a few steps compared to the standard attack mechanic of D&D. Whereas D&D does an attack roll + damage roll (if successful), sometimes followed by a saving throw (for certain special attacks), Warhammer goes:

• Roll to attack
• (if successful) Roll to wound (Strength versus Toughness)
• (if successful) Defender rolls to save (using armor)

And there are sometimes additional effects that need to be determined; in some editions, a failed save requires a random number of wounds (damage) to be rolled, depending on the strength of the weapon. While it seems like a lot of steps, in practice it's fairly quick and easy because of the limited range of probabilities and the ease of rolling multiple D6s and removing "dead" models. Playability, again, makes it a popular system for wargaming. The translation to RPG is a bit more clunky in execution, but because combat tends to be over quickly (with a high degree of lethality), it's fairly forgivable.

The "armor as saving throw" is the part that I find most interesting, as well as its translation to the RPG. In WFB the armor save is (was? I haven't kept up on recent editions):

• 6 for light armor
• 5-6 for heavy armor
• +1 if using a shield
• +1 if unit is mounted

That means a guy using plate and shield has a 50% chance to resist (D6 roll of 4+) any wound that would otherwise by inflicted on the character...unless struck by a weapon that ignores or penalizes the armor save (some magical or especially strong attacks).

WFRP does not have an armor save; instead armor worn reduces damage inflicted to the tune of 1 point for light armor and 2 points for heavy armor. It seems like a strange choice (to interpret the save in this way) until you consider that damage in WFRP is on a 1D6 scale...which is to say that, like OD&D (or Holmes or default B/X), all weapons in WFRP do 1D6 points of damage towards a target's wound total (hit points). If you subtract 1 point from the D6 roll (as with light armor) that means you have a 1 in 6 chance of taking no damage; if you subtract 2 points, that chance of "no damage" goes up to 2 in 6...both of which matches the save percentages of light and heavy armor.

'Course it also has the benefit of reducing damage from the blows that do land which, coupled with the multiple wounds PCs carry in WFRP, gives characters a chance to show-off some of that "heroic sticking power," even if its not as much as your typical D&D character (characters in WFRP have nowhere near as many hit points as even a mid-level PC from D&D).

Had some neat ideas.

D&D has, on occasion, provided similar alternate armor rules where armor reduced damage sustained rather than chance to hit (see the BECMI Gazetteer Dawn of the Emperors: Thyatis and Alphatia, for one example. I believe I've also seen something in a past Dragon magazine). But doing this...removing the "armor" part from "armor class"...really requires a re-tooling of the whole combat system from the ground-up. And THAT is something I haven't seen for D&D.

WFRP, like other systems that use armor as "damage reduction," has a straight skill roll based on a person's combat ability...you see similar systems like Chaosium's BRP (Stormbringer, ElfQuest, and Pendragon as three variant examples). But those systems also get caught up in granularity...the one attack equals one swing thing (followed by a defensive dodge or parry...and possibly a riposte). While that way lies madness (I'm not interested in that type of granular scale for D&D) the point is somewhat moot, as D&D does not measure combat ability as a skill in the same way as, say fire-building or rope-tying or whatever. Not even in later editions.

Do I have a problem with the D&D combat system, with the way armor is handled? I'm not sure I do. I do like the idea of making armor a bit more important, as the ability to wear heavy armor is one of the fighter's main advantages in early editions of the game. And there are problematic aspects of the AC-system (which I've written about before). Still...this is just "thinking out loud" at this point. I'm certainly not interested in sacrificing playability, just to skew a system to match my own perception of how armor should function.

Basic Weapons

Most of my blog posts are fairly "off the cuff" (in case anyone hadn't noticed), something that gets me in trouble more times than I'd like. Of course, even when I do "plan out" posts, things don't always go as planned, so most of the time I'm, like, "why bother?"

Well, here's one of the times I'm bothering (just a little)...I wanted to talk about the weapons I'm including in the new "heartbreaker," but then I realized that just a little explanation might need an extra post or two, and then I thought, shit, I probably need to explain where these damn weapon list come from in the first place. Because, you see, I'm not terribly interested in including "design notes" in my publications. It's not that such design notes aren't useful or interesting (usually I find them interesting, when I'm reading other people's work), but A) I try to NOT pad page count (to keep costs down), and B) I have a blog to ramble on about why I do stuff.

[for instance, remember last month's multi-part discussion on chopping saving throws? See, that kind of stuff I don't want to have to explain in the game book itself. Putting it on the blog allows interested people to see my bizarre thought process...it also provides a forum of sorts for feedback in the form of dissenting opinions expressed in the comments section]

ANYway...basic weapons. Let's talk about where these weapons come from.

Prior to AD&D (1st Edition) with its extensive list of diverse and different pole arms and swords, we had an extremely simple list of weapons to choose from. The list in Holmes Basic (published prior to the release of the 1E PHB) is the exact same as the list found in Men & Magic, LBB #1 of OD&D. For the sake of the post, here it is (exactly as it appears in OD&D):

Dagger 3
Hand Axe 3
Mace 5
Sword 10
Battle Axe 7
Morning Star 6
Flail 8
Spear 1
Pole arm 7
Halberd 7
Two-Handed Sword 15
Lance 4
Pike 5

[the number listed next to the name is the cost of the weapon in gold pieces. There's no difference between OD&D and Holmes, save that Holmes charges 2 gold for a spear instead of one]

I won't bother with the missile weapons but the list is the same in both OD&D and Holmes.

It's not a bad starting list but there are a couple interesting things to consider. First, it has separate entries for "pole arm," "halberd," and "spear," and "pike." Second, it's listed in no discernible order: the list is neither alphabetical, nor arranged in ascending order of cost, nor by grouping of weapon type (for example, axes together). There's also some conspicuous absences that we find in later editions (like the "short sword" and "war hammer"), yet it includes weapons that are missing from later Basic editions (morning stars, flails, halberds, and pikes).

So where does this list come from? I mean, sure, Holmes gets its list from OD&D, but where does the list originate? And why was this the list the one finalized for inclusion in OD&D?

As usual, we need to go back to Chainmail to answer these questions.

The weapons found in OD&D are the exact same weapons (and presented in the same order) as those found in the Man-To-Man combat section of Chainmail. Chainmail has, in fact, three different combat systems within its contents: a mass combat system for troops on the battlefield, a "fantasy combat" system (for fantasy types engaged with other fantasy types: hero versus dragon, etc.), and a "man-to-man" system for one-on-one fights between individual, normal folks.

[actually, it has separate rules for tournament jousting, too, but I'm not sure I'd count that as "combat"]

Note I'm saying normal, non-heroic types: "hero versus hero" falls into the "fantasy combat" system (a hero kills another hero on a 2D6 roll of 8+, regardless of weapons and armor...well, unless the hero's wielding a magic weapon), and "hero versus normal" is better represented by the standard battlefield system (as heroes and superheroes mow through groups of troops). Nope, the man-to-man is strictly for two normal dudes facing off in a duel. The man-to-man system is supposed to be used for "small battles and castle sieges" and it compares the attacker's weapon with the defender's "armor protection type" to arrive at a (2D6) target number for killing the dude.

The classes of "armor protection" will be familiar to players of the basic D&D: no armor, shield only, leather, leather & shield, chain, chain mail & shield, plate armor, and plate with shield. Each weapon has a different "kill" number depending on the armor type: for example, a battle axe only needs a 7+ against chain (even with shield), but an 8+ against lighter armor types, a 9+ against plate, and a 10+ against plate and shield. A dagger is great against "no armor" (6+), but it's chance of success goes steadily downward from there up to 12 for plate (with or without shield).

The weapon types are classified by numbers, from #1 through #12 in the exact order presented in both OD&D and Holmes Basic:

1. Dagger
2. Hand Axe
3. Mace
4. Sword
5. Battle Axe
6. Morning Star
7. Flail
8. Spear
9. Pole Arms & Halberd*
10. 2-Handed Sword
11. Mounted Lance
12. Pike

[*halberds are indistinguishable from pole arms in man-to-man combat but provide an extra die in mass combat]

Here, the number or "class" of the weapon makes a difference in who hits first in melee, whether or not the defender has a chance to parry, and whether or not either party receives additional blows in the exchange. This is provided by comparing the weapon class of each opponent to one another. For example, the attacker (person who initiates combat) always strikes the first blow, unless the defender has a weapon "two classes higher" (say, if the defender had a spear (#8) and the attacker was using a morning star (#6) or lesser weapon).

This can get rather complex. For example, a person using a sword (#4), attacks a Swiss pikeman (or "piker," as I prefer to call 'em). The piker (#12) gets the first blow in the 1st round (defender with weapon two classes higher), but strikes second in all subsequent rounds (opponent with weapon class two classes lower than the other strikes first). However, because the swordsman is eight classes below the pike, "the defender gets the first blow and may parry the second or strike the second." Based on the text that follows, it appears that this only applies when the defender is the swordsman, although pikes still always receive first blow over lower class weapons if there is a charge. Furthermore, because the sword is more than eight classes lower, the swordsman is allowed to strike three blows every round. If the swordsman was wielding a flail instead, he'd only get one extra blow (two total)...though when exactly these blows occur (prior to the piker? divided before and after the piker's blow?) and how the parries apply are mysteries unsolved by the text.

The point here is that these weapons and (especially) their arrangement matters. They are classified by length and weight, because this is Very Important Thing in melee combat. Not damage (they all kill their opponents, though the degree of success they have is dependent on their effectiveness versus the type of protection utilized). Timing and distance, folks.

I used to hate combat in ElfQuest (the RPG) back in the day because its "strike rank" system based on combatant size and weapon length did not model the fighting found in the comic books. In the comic, Cutter and his short sword makes quick slice-n-dice work of trolls with their spears and pole arms, he's so fast on the scamper...in the game, he'd have his arm cut off before he could strike a blow. What I didn't realize was that the Chaosium's combat system was taken from RuneQuest (I presume) which tries to model a more historically accurate form of combat. At least, that's what I've read (never having played RQ).

Prepare to die, shorty.

This is very different from how combat in D&D eventually developed, using the D20 roll and the "Alternative Combat System." The advantage the ACS has is that it's applied consistently...there's only one method of combat in D&D, whether you're dealing with man-to-man duels, man-on-troop brawls, or man-on-monster slaughterfests. One unified system. Unfortunately, the system leaves quite a bit to be desired (see prior discussions on ghost-fighting and dragon slaying, not to mention everyone's usual bitches about mass combat, armor reducing damage, etc.).

Moldvay's Basic game at least steps away from the Chainmail battlefield and gives us a weapon list more befitting what one might take into a dungeon setting. No pikers here, though even a spear is a stretch (and I'm with Charles on the 10' pole, too). Here (in Moldvay) we also see the advent of two-handed weapons striking last...not a terrible attempt to model the difficulty of fighting with a large weapon in cramped spaces. However, Moldvay has its own problematic parts, like short swords and "throwing hammers."

But we're going to talk about those in subsequent posts this week.
: )

By the way, one thing I do NOT intend on discussing is the extensive AD&D weapon charts...they're a hot mess because of their attempt to "patch" the realism that got dropped in the move from Chainmail combat to abstract combat. Yes, "realism"...Chainmail wasn't supposed to be abstract, it was blow-for-blow, only intended to model killing an opponent (anything that wasn't a "kill" - lesser wounds and fatigue, for example - are ignored outright). But all that space requirements and attack versus armor and speed factor jive...all that just served to complicate (and render absurd) the abstractness of the Alternative Combat System suggested in OD&D. For folks who love it...have at it. I don't plan on discussing in much in the coming days.

Duty, Family, Honor

So I’ve been Jonesin’ to play Pendragon lately.

I’ve never actually played Pendragon. I’ve owned a copy for awhile (the 3rd edition, which, I suppose is technically a 2nd edition, seeing as how there was never a 2nd edition printed). I’ve owned it for awhile…picked it up used a couple years back…but just haven’t had the opportunity to set up a Pendragon campaign. These days it’s difficult enough to set-up a game where everyone can commit (and show up) to a regular weekly game. A generation-spanning game like Pendragon (even with 1 year per session) seems more than a little ambitious…it sounds like an f’ing pipe dream. And that’s assuming I can find some folks who are as big of King Arthur nerds as myself.

We’ll get back that in a second…perhaps a better question is: why the hell am I so weird? I mean, I AM willing to make the time to play and show up every week, despite family and friends and work and age and injury. I mean, 4 hours of sleep (which is what I get on game nights since my dogs wake me up before dawn every morning) is a small price to pay for a night of role-playing. At least for ME it’s a small price to pay. Is it so strange? I still have dinner with my fam, go on trips, walk the dogs, watch ballgames, pay taxes…but one night a week I set aside for my burning desire to escape reality. I guess I’m just a freak.

Okay, enough o that…Pendragon. Truth be told, I’d actually prefer the chance to PLAY Pendragon, but I’d settle for running the game. It really is too bad that we didn’t have this game as kids (i.e. pre-1986). I guess the first edition was published in 1985, but I certainly don’t remember it. Still it would have been a great game to have as the play appears to describe the type of campaigns we were interested in running back in the day (generational conflicts, issues of heredity and heirs and power, rather than just dungeon-delving). Instead we were left floundering with AD&D at a time when TSR was more concerned with patching together a skill system in the form of “non-weapon proficiencies” (see Oriental Adventures, the Dungeoneering Survival Guide, etc.) to fatten one character sheet.

Is it much wonder we switched to Marvel? At least we could use THAT to emulate the soap opera stories found in X-Men comics.

Why Pendragon; why now? I think I can lay the blame squarely on my new interest in Game of Thrones. Just finished watching Disc 2 last night of the first season last night. Unfortunately, I’ve reached a point where I no longer enjoy the show. See, I made the mistake of borrowing the Martin book for my recent trip to Washington D.C. and spent most of the plane ride home reading the first 400 pages or so. Although I’m (roughly) at the same point in the TV series as I am in the novel, I find I vastly prefer the book…and I find myself frustrated with the “abridged” version so necessary to make a visual weekly program. Cool as it is to see The Wall in all its HD/CGI glory, I love reading all the extra “stuff” that goes into making Martin’s world a living, breathing world.

[understand that they’re two different mediums. The TV show IS admirable, which is what brought me to the book in the first place. It’s not my fault I just prefer the book…]

And it’s that “extra stuff” in Game of Thrones that suggests Pendragon to me. There’s something very much Arthurian Saga-like about Game of Thrones. Sure, sure…there are shades of Moorcock’s Elric books (with those all-conquering dragon lords of yesteryear), but knights in their twilight, the lords and their intrigues, the One King trying to unite a nation at war with itself against a pending invasion of Dothraki/Saxons…and the impending tragedies one can see on the horizon… Yeah, it feels very Arthurian to me.

Oh…that and I totally dig on how every kingdom has its own animal sigil. I am a big fan of (simplified) heraldry.

Now, if I could REALLY have my druthers, I wouldn’t simply be playing Pendragon…I would instead be playing Pendragon in the Game of Thrones SETTING. Because THAT’s what I really want. Keep the same system, but nix all the Great Britain stuff and ‘port over all the Great Houses and personalities from Martin’s books. Instead of starting as Knights of Salisbury, players could start as sons of Bannermen to one of the Great Houses (perhaps the Starks of Winterfell since so much adventure seems to lie in the North, otherwise one out of the East). The random annual tables would have to be adjusted a bit to take into account the years-spanning seasons, but pretty much everything else, system-wise, could be uses as is. And that would be cool.

It makes me wonder…knowing that Mr. Martin at one time played Superworld (the Chaosium “superhero game”) that was used as the inspiration for the Wild Card books, is it possible that the Game of Thrones arose from a modified Pendragon game (also published by Chaosium) with a similar system?

Of course, there already IS a Game of Thrones RPG – or rather, A Song of Fire and Ice based on the series as a whole. I did have the chance to page through that book a few weeks ago but wasn’t very impressed/thrilled with the system mechanics perused. Of course, that was before I had the chance to get into the book. Now that I’ve had my interest piqued, I’m considering picking it up, or at least giving it a second glance. NOT because I think my impression of the game would change, but because of the background material it might be able to provide for a game set in Martin’s fictional world.

My family’s out-of-town for the next few days…I’m not really interested in talking about that at the moment…so I have some free time on my hands. Maybe a little Pendragon-Game of Thrones conversion could be ironed out over the course of the weekend, seeing as I have nothing else on my plate. And if I DID get something set-up perhaps I could entice some players to play a weekly, saga-style game. King Arthur might be “old hat” to these young(ish) players…but GoT is a totally hip and happening bunch o hotness.

Just something I’m thinking ‘bout.

No Hulk

Okay, so Superworld can’t really duplicate the Emerald Goliath…well, not anyway I can find that models the comic book character.

See, SW is a pretty darn good, but it still has a modicum of balance…and a bit of realism…that, while I like it, manages to stick itself in the eye. Regarding the Hulk we have two issues that torpedo the Jolly Green Giant…one technical and one practical.

The technical one is the real heartbreaker: boosting a character’s Super Strength or Super Size (remember, this is a Chaosium/BRP game so we have that nice little 7th attribute: Size) is limited by a character’s initial ROLLED attributes. Yes, Superworld combines random attributes with picked/chosen powers…a little combination I was using in my own super design.

So if one WANTS a character with a Size of 34 and a Strength of 80-something (this would model the Hulk of the Ultimates comic universe) your character’s combined STARTING strength and size would need to be in the 16 and 16 range. Since a Size of 16 is equivalent to someone that’s 220lbs (and Banner is about 120) that doesn’t work. Of course, you could put the Size down to 10 and still get the same limit on Super Strength/Super Size…if you were able to roll a 26 for your strength.

Now it is possible to purchase handicaps that reduce one’s ability scores…but by rule you are unable to apply a Super ability to an ability that has been reduced. Likewise, the handicap “non-super i.d.” seems custom-made for the Banner/Hulk…except that taking away the super-abs still leaves you with a 200+ pound weight-lifter as opposed to the skinny scientist (again, assuming you stick with the rule book's power level limits).

[as I said I LIKE the limitations in the game as they DO prevent the “breaking” of chargen found in certain other point-buy supers games (*ahem*). They just don't work for my Hulk-man]

Next we have the PRACTICAL limitations, specifically regarding energy expenditure. Similar to Villains & Vigilantes, Superworld gives every character an “Energy” stat that is a reflection of the characters’ spirit and fatigue level and acting as the battery juicing their powers. UNlike V&V, this applies to most every type of action a character takes, including lifting heavy objects and using one’s natural damage bonus.

Okay, I can get that actually…it should tire out behemoths to throw cars around and put their full force into those super-haymakers. Unfortunately the amount of energy required is determined by the amount of Strength being used…and the amount of energy available is NOT related to the amount of strength one has.

So, for example, if my Hulk character wants to throw a “full strength” punch (assuming size 34 and a strength of 85…strong enough that he has a 50% chance of lifting a medium tank without straining) his total damage bonus is +10D6 at a cost of 30 energy. Base energy is determined by one’s POW + CON. Now both these abilities have a “rolled” maximum of 18 and increasing them with levels of Super Power or Super Constitution has limits determined by their initial rolled amount (though slightly different from the STR and SIZ limits). The absolute maximum raise would be 24 and 36 respectively, making for a total energy supply of 60…giving the Hulk a two punch limit before he needs to sit down and take a breather. Most characters can make at least two punches in a single melee round.

Pretty lame.

Same holds true for any Mighty Thor-equivalent or Superman type character. Yes, you can give characters the power “Energy Source” which increases the amount of “juice” in their batteries…but all of these things (Super POW, Super CON, Energy Source) eat into the total number of points available for building a character’s super powers (we haven’t even considered how to do the damage resistance, bonus hit points, armor, leaping, regeneration, speed, etc.) all of which come from the finite limits set by the character’s initial, rolled characteristics.

Which in Banner’s case should be fairly limited (assuming you want to have the puny scientist alter-ego).

Superworld cautions against using the rules to create an “all powerful” character, but the limitations engrained in the system seem to preclude the building of any such character…at least, if one is trying to accurately model certain iconic comic creations.

Ah, well…I said EARLIER that I didn’t think Superworld was a “perfect” game. And by perfect I mean, “meeting the ideals I personally hold dear for any RPG involving the superhero genre.” But it’s definitely “up there.”

In fact, after semi-careful consideration, I think I need a new Top Ten list.

TOP TEN SUPERHERO RPGS
(ranked in order I’d be willing to play ‘em)

1. Superworld
2. Heroes Unlimited
3. Godlike/Wild Talents
4. Marvel (TSR edition)
5. Villains & Vigilantes
6. Mutants & Masterminds
7. Adventure!
8. Capes
9. Aberrant
10. With Great Power…

A couple caveats: Heroes Unlimited only gets played with a couple modifications, specifically my Karma rules converted from Marvel (not posted because, well, you know how Palladium is), and the junking of pretty much the entire skill system. Superworld might (repeat: MIGHT) need some modification if you want to model specific game universes.

Not considered: DC Heroes/Blood of Heroes, BASH, Silver Age Sentinels, and Truth & Justice…I’m just not familiar enough with these rules to make a judgment.

Waaaay out of the running: Guardians, Sketch!, GURPS Supers, and Champions (any edition).

***EDIT: Damn! Completely forgot about Mutant City Blues by Pelgrane Press. That game rocks and I haven't had a chance to play it yet. I'd slot it in at #3, #4, or #5 on the list above, depending on my mood (it definitely steps over V&V, but I'm not sure about Marvel or Godlike). Man...I forget that one too often!***

One Badass Supers Game

I went down to Gary's today looking for a used copy of Ninjas & Superspies...that's just how bad my ninja fixation has been this last week (did I mention I spent last night watching a G4 marathon of the reality contest Ninja Warrior? Holy cow those dudes are fit!).

Unfortunately, while I must have seen the book on the shelf every day for the last...oh, six months or so...it was missing in action today. I read through the new copy just to make sure I could bear to live without it (I could), and decided the stars and cosmos had all aligned today to prevent me from making a ninja-madness induced purchase.

At the same time, the universe provided me with a bounty of gifts, as I was able to pick-up Rifts Sourcebook 1 (completing my quest for "essential-Rifts-books-in-case-I-ever-run-a-game-in-the-future"), Revised Recon (a game I've spent a few years looking), and the complete three volume set of Chaosium's Superworld.

I've mentioned before that I am a sucker for superhero games...I've also talked and brainstormed the beginnings of my own B/X-based supers game. Well, after reading Superworld front-to-back over breakfast, my quest for an excellent superhero RPG may well have come to an end.

No, it's not a perfect RPG, nor even a perfect superhero RPG. But it sure is a badass one. Simple to use (a much toned-down, stream-lined sill system compared to Chaosium's other BRP system is a Big Plus), and written in a matter-of-fact, straight-forward fashion (if I DO finish designing my own superhero game I'm going to be taking A LOT of cues from Superworld), I came away extremely impressed...and anxious to try it out.

I can see how such a system could be used for the creation of such a vibrant universe as the Wild Cards series. Really. As I said in last night's post, I've been feeling pretty "low brow" lately...like all you other cats are operating on a higher level than myself. Recently, I thought I'd contribute my two cents over at the Revolution's discussion on personality mechanics and was again slapped down by someone who considered the discussion to be operating on a "deeper level" (likewise over at Tao of D&D...I don't even know why I try butting heads with that guy).

But regarding personality mechanics for a moment...it seems to me there are three approaches one can take to incorporating them in an RPG:

- have a simple game with only minimal rules (say, D&D regarding alignment) that allow one to get pretty much exactly what one puts in

- have a game that deeply ingrains personality mechanics into the normal system (say, The Riddle of Steel and its spiritual attributes)

- have a game that pays lip-service to "in-depth role-playing" but with very little mechanical consequences (say, Vampire's "prelude questionnaire")

[yes, I'm intimately familiar with Vampire's humanity mechanics. Know what? Big whoop-dee-doo. Once your humanity has been reduced sufficiently, it has little lasting effect even on the committing of heinous crimes and atrocities...plus, with the advent of the Sabbat books, one can always take an inhuman "Path of Enlightenment" or whatever they're called, and then there's nothing to stop characters from being raging monsters. In the end, isn't that what the whole vampire fantasy/fetish is?]

Oh, yeah, there's a 4th way RPGs can go...make a game that has pretty much ZERO to do with personality mechanics, but instead make it a combat-happy video-game-on-a-table. You know, the kind of thing you find in post-2000 commercial RPGs?

ANYway...of the three approaches, I actually find option #1 to be the most competent at developing inner game personalities and actual nuanced change over time. Of course, this requires two things from the players (and I include DM/GM as player here):

1) a commitment to exploring said personality (i.e. "inner life") development, and

2) a long term time commitment.

The first is necessary because...well, because with little in the way of mechanical rules there's nothing that holds you to the development. You get out what you put in (this doesn't work with the rule heavier games in general because there's so much other extraneous stuff going...generally, combat/tactical/resource management). You have the TIME (and hopefully the extra energy) to manage your character's inner life, so take advantage.

The second is necessary because, as in "real life," changes to one's personality "matrix" generally happens over time. We as people are generally slow to change our ways and beliefs, and the integration of experience into our personalities is usually NOT a fast process. If you have never played a long term campaign of D&D, chances are you've never had a lot of personality development (and I would argue you've missed out on some of the richer potential for role-playing).

Superworld is like D&D. It has almost ZERO with regard to personality mechanics (you can claim a few extra points for certain psychological disadvantages and that's about it), but also has a fairly simple system that doesn't occupy one's time at the table with a bunch of other junk (hey, BRP is nothing if not fairly simple to use...and the earlier BRP systems are even easier than the more recent versions, in my opinion). What's more, because it's a specific "genre" or RPG (in this case, comic book superhero-ing of the early '80s) there are certain recognizable conventions (like not killing people at your mercy) that, while they don't HAVE to be followed, certainly can be if everyone at the table is on-board.

Anyway, I dig it. I'll have to throw together some characters to see if I can model everything on the "Green Spectrum" (i.e. Green Arrow to the Green Goliath, aka The Hulk). I have a feeling that it IS possible, and if so...well, I don't REALLY need to write my own game if I have one that does everything for me, right?

Badass.

: )

Axioms & Elves

A couple posts ago I mentioned a third possible axiom of game design, but I didn’t bother to still it down or discuss it at length, partly as it wasn’t pertinent to the discussion at hand, partly due to the post being even more long-winded than usual already. But I wanted a chance to discuss it now. AXIOM #3:

Good game design rewards behavior meeting the objectives of play.

As with my prior axioms that’s me trying to be as pithy as possible. To elaborate a bit, I’m saying that the system of a game (it’s rules and how they function) should promote the behavior the designer wants to see occur around the gaming table.

Now I realize I’m making a gross assumption here: that rewards systems have ANY influence on behavior within a game. Well, they do all right?…they have AN influence I’m certain, even though it may not be the ONLY influence…which is why there are so many different ways RPGs are played, not always as originally intended by the designer.

But that’s what we’re talking about: “GOOD” game design. A designer has objectives when designing a game, whether as simplistic as “I want to play a game of ass-kicking robots” to as specific as “an intimate exploration of love, pity, and self-loathing in a remote Transylvanian village” to as nuanced as “a version of D&D that delves into cosmic/creepy horror.”

Designers have objectives, even beyond “making a quick buck.” Now, how well they meet those objectives is where we start defining what is “good” versus “non-good” game design. And the way we measure this success (or lack thereof) is by observing how easily the objectives are met IN PLAY.

In other words: are people playing the game right? And by “right” I mean, “in the manner in which its designer intended it to be played.”

Now for the record, a game design doesn’t have to be good to be successful. Like the movie that is supposed to be a masterpiece of horror, but instead becomes a campy and unintentionally funny “cult classic,” games may be used with much enjoyment in manners not foreseen by the designer when he or she originally sat down at the keyboard. If your intention was to get published or make a few bucks, well okay then, “mission accomplished.” But if you intended people to play YOUR game YOUR way and it’s NOT…well, then you missed something as a game designer.

So acknowledging that “reward systems” in games are NOT the only reasons we play games (for example, we also play for the enjoyment of camaraderie, the chance to exercise our imagination, our interest in a particular source of licensed material, etc.) and thus are not the ONLY influences on player behavior…acknowledging THAT right off the bat, we then ask: Does the system as designed reward behavior that promotes the way the game is “supposed to be played?”

If it does, then bam! – good game design. If not…well, then not. An example or two might be useful.

Chaosium’s ElfQuest is a game I’ve owned for a long time, and one I’ve played and ran many times. Based on the Wendy Pini comics of the same title (at least the first 20 issues), the game’s objective appears to be “to allow players to experience adventure in the World of Two Moons” either by recreating the original comic book plots or by inventing one’s own pastiche of ElfQuest.

And who doesn’t like ElfQuest? For that matter, who doesn’t like elves in general? Even for folks not into the particular comic IP, people who are into psionic (“magic”) elves, faeries, and trolls are going to be just fine with a little escapist fantasy. Hell, when I was a kid, my friend and I used to spend hours running around the forest behind her house, carrying bows and pretending to be Wolfriders. It helped that her dog, Molly, was a big ‘ol German Shepherd that looked very wolfish in appearance (though we did not attempt to “ride” Mol).

But, okay…kids playing in the woods, pretending they’re elves living in a tree is one thing. At the gaming table? What the hell are you supposed to do?

Go to war with the trolls, of course…over and over again.

See, for those who’ve read Mrs. Pini’s remarkable comics there’s a lot to love besides the spectacular artwork. She paints a lot of drama into her work even if there isn’t much combat/action. Oh, there’s ACTION, just not much of the fighting with swords and daggers variety. There’s plenty of CONFLICT…elves trying to make homes for themselves, trying to find/fight love/attraction, new cultures misunderstanding each other, finding one’s origins when others try to keep it hidden, political games/intrigue, proving oneself to one’s tribe/community. There’s some “exploration” that occurs, but mostly “the road” is glossed over…the main exploration that occurs is the exploration of CHARACTER.

There are conflicts that lead to bloodshed in the books...a total of four by my count. Two very brief, bloody encounters with humans, one flashback scene with a big monster that needs to be put down, and the war with the trolls that occurs over the last five issues…a war encompassing three pitched battles. But that’s really it…and even after the “war” is done, there’s plenty more drama that occurs. After all, Pini is describing a world and a people, their growth and development, and it’s not all “storm the tower and kick ass” stuff. Human life IS drama much of the time, and the elves of ElfQuest, while an alien species, are still sculpted on the human experience with human emotions…which is one of the reasons they’re such beloved comics.

OK…so now, how do you translate that into an RPG?

Well, if you’re Chaosium, you use a derivative of the BRP to simulate the characters found in the comics, including a detailed and tailored-specific chargen system…and then you drop the ball. That is, there is nothing in the design of the game that supports the creation of ElfQuest-esque stories. A few sample scenarios (including a war with humans and a war with trolls, a conflict with a mad High One…call it the “evil wizard encounter”…and a fight with a monster based on the aforementioned monster fight of the comics) are provided…and that’s it.

Oh, wait…there ARE rules for “recognition” provided in the system (a percentage chance that any elves upon encountering new elves might have a couple involuntary romantic relationships formed)…but none of the provided scenarios deal with recognition, romance, or “soul names”…despite this being a major focus of much of the conflict/drama in the comics (for example, issues #2-5, issues #11-15, and issue #20).

The “reward system” of ElfQuest is limited to the normal BRP Increase-Skill-Check-For-Skills-Used. Elves don’t have money or attachment to personal possessions (in general), so there’s no adventuring for treasure or need to purchase equipment. There’s no fame points or measurement of status/prestige, no levels or experience points that are gained, nada. There’s no In-System rules that are going to lead to the exploration of character or that will lead to social conflict/drama…the design simply provides the chassis of the vehicle without a goddamn engine to run it.

Which to me is an excellent analogy. ElfQuest is a beautiful book (it has Pini’s artwork for one thing), well written with an enjoyable chargen system (we have created many elves…including illustrations!...using the rules). But it’s like owning a sports car with no engine…sure, it will move IF I get out and push the damn thing myself!

And I don’t want to have to push the car. I don’t want to have to draw inspiration (i.e. “rip off”) Pini’s stories or force/manipulate players with my plot lines and GM-designed NPCs simply to get an ElfQuest-like game. Besides being more work than I want to do (I might as well start writing short stories about elves!) it kind of defeats the whole purpose of playing an RPG, which is a collaborative effort between GM and players.

Unfortunately, ElfQuest is a poorly designed RPG in this regard. It doesn’t have a system that Rewards the behavior that is expected to lead to “EQ-style” game play. It doesn’t give you any more than what you bring to it, in other words. Well, shit…so what am I paying for? Something for my comic collection I guess.

Contrast that with the greatest fantasy adventure game ever designed: B/X Dungeons & Dragons. Characters are rewarded for adventuring, i.e. “overcoming monsters/obstacles and recovering treasure.” The reward system (XPs, leveling up) creates the desired behavior (let’s go adventure!).

Now realize that Axiom #3 does NOT say a game must have a “reward system” of any particular type…there’s no need for a game to include levels or skill boosts or any such thing. But the system that REWARDS BEHAVIOR…behavior conducive to the design goals of its author(s)…is the good game design. Ron Edward’s Sorcerer rewards behavior. So does My Life With Master, Dust Devils, and Dogs in the Vineyard.

Look at Boot Hill, which I consider to have great economy of game design. BH is designed to recreate the brutal, fast paced deadliness of the Old West. Right down to the name (most PCs are going to eventually end up on Boot Hill), the thing does nothing BUT “reward” the proper behavior. If your character insists on getting into gun fights, he’ll improve in ability until he gets dead. If he instead uses his wit to escape shoot-outs, he won’t ever increase his gun fighting ability…but he probably won’t get killed (I don’t seem to recall any stray bullet rules). The game CAN be used by the more ambitious players to create grand, sweeping epics of the Old West…but its basic design is to allow one to create gunfights in the street (both historic and fictional) like the Battle of Coffeyville or the OK Corral, and it’s well-designed to do so.

Ah, well...more design theory later I'm sure. Prost!

: )

Under the Sea! Under the Sea!

Dudes, these monsters are the same damn thing.  Just because highly creative artists have attempted to illustrate them differently doesn't mean they're not.

Gygax's Kuo-Toa are basically nothing more than a re-worked Sahuagin (the latter NOT a creation of Dave Arneson per Gary, though their first appearance in D&D IS in the Blackmoore supplement). The wikipedia states Gygax claimed them as a creation of Steve Marsh, but I can't help but this, like EGG's own fish-men, may have been an attempt (in part) to help bury or sublimate another o Dave's creations.

[nah, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I generally give Gary the benefit o the doubt, but business is business, right?]

Let's compare, shall we?

Armor class 5 or AC 4. Hit dice 2+2 (or more), HD 2 (or more)...both continue to grow in size with age. Sahuagin "wear a harness to carry their personal gear and weapons;" Kuo-Toa wear "only leather harnesses for their weapons and a small amount of personal gear." Spears, daggers, nets, crossbows and tridents for one group...spears, daggers, nets, short bows and harpoons for the other; PLUS gluey shields and pincer staffs for the Kuo-Toa. Both have aversions to sunlight, both are amphibious, both capture humans for slaves, sport, and sacrifice.  Both have cleric-priests, culture, extensive histories of bad blood with creatures of the surface world. Both have sharp teeth for when they get in close and personal.

Of course, Gygax's Kuo-Toa are over complicated (IMO) by the addition of character classes to the monster. Oh...and they can join hands and shoot lightning. 

Now the reason I'm looking at these critters at all is because I want something like the Sahuagin or the Kuo-Toa in my game. I LIKE both of these monsters (well, except maybe the whole lightning thing...I forgot all about that!), and a semi-barbaric/semi-civilized race of evil aquatic beings bent on world domination (or at least bent towards making the surface dwellers miserable) is immensely pulpy and fantastic.  In other words, it's imperative (again, my opinion) to include some sort of amphibious, diabolically organized humanoid.

Lovecraft's Deep Ones are barbaric and organized and they, too, have their own weird religion and priest caste (if you can call their particular form of ancestor worship the same as a clerical religion).  The Call of Cthulhu RPG gives them a spear attack or claw. I also dig the whole human/Deep One-hybrid thing.  In addition to being exceedingly creepy, it's a twisted version of the classic halfling- (i.e. half-human/fae, not hobbit) or changeling-type of folk tale.

Now, it's been written that the Kuo-Toans are Gary's homage to HPL's Deep Ones, and that the Sahuagin are based on the Maori folklore of the under-sea goblin the Ponaturi.  Whether or not Lovecraft's Deep Ones are modeled after the Ponaturi is a whole different subject...um, as is the story that Sahuagin are based on an episode of the Super Friends cartoon (I watched the Super Friends as a kid and I don't remember cannibalistic underwater dwellers...maybe I've suppressed the memory?).

Anyway, for my B/X Companion I'm doing a combo-pastiche of all these critters. For the sake of Hasbro and Chaosium's intellectual property, I'm naming 'em after the historic legend...oh, and I'm leaving out the lightning bolts.

From Part 6: Monsters (B/X Companion):

Ponaturi

Armor Class: 4.............No. Appearing: 1-6 (6-36)

Hit Dice: 2+2.............Save As: Fighter 3

Move: 150' (50').............Morale: 11

Attack: 2 or 1 Weapon.............Treasure Type: M

Damage: 3-6/3-6 or 1D8+2.............Alignment: Chaotic

Ponaturi are an ancient race of evil, amphibious humanoids that live in the deepest depths of the ocean or undersea caverns. They can breathe both air and water, but generally only venture to the surface world to collect humans for food, sport, slaves, and sacrifice. On land, their movement is only 90' (30').

The ponaturi live for hundreds of years and grow larger and  stronger with age. An average adult ponaturi is over 6' tall; the oldest are more than 21' tall and have 17+17 hit dice and do 12-24 points of damage with each claw attack (each extra foot of height adding an extra 1+1 to hit dice; each extra 5' of height multiplies damage by one additional factor). They save as fighters of the same HD plus one (except clerics, see below).

Ponaturi live in large cities far from the eyes of the surface world. They have clerics (spell level equal to hit dice, add one * to hit dice for every 2 or fraction of 2 spell levels), and war parties of 20+ individuals will generally have a cleric of level 3-8, plus a leader of HD 5-9. Ponaturi have webbed claws, scaly hides, and dead black, shark-like eyes that allow them to see well in the dark but make them vulnerable to light (-1 to hit and saves in even torch light, -2 in full daylight). When armed, they generally wield harpoon-like spears, barbed nets, and large serrated daggers.

Stormbringer!

Warning: this entry has a bit less to do with Dungeons and Dragons than normal.

I discovered Ken St. Andre's truly cool Stormbringer RPG around the age of 15 or so...once again finding the boxed set in my favorite used book store in Missoula, Montana. You have to understand I spent a lot of time in Montana as a youth (bi-annual visits to see relatives), and I enjoyed reading and had limited funds to spend. Plus, my family would usually be traveling by car from Seattle, and as I finished most of my initial reading material on the ten hour journey East, I always needed to pick up new material for the return trip.

By this time, I knew who Elric was, and all about his legendary demon sword. I may have even read my first Moorcock book, though I don't think that occurred till later (maybe I read the graphic novel). Anyway, Stormbringer would be my introduction to Chaosium, the BRP system, and crunchy combat mechanics in role-playing. It was very, very cool.

The first edition of Stormbringer is a beautifully illustrated soft-cover rule book with everything you need to play the game, including lavish black-and-white illustrations that perfectly set the mood and tone for the game. At the time, having split with my oldest, original gaming group, and having no interest in the pastel colors of 2nd Edition AD&D, Stormbringer was a perfect fit: bleak, cynical, deadly, and full of angst.

Of course, the game itself didn't appeal to everyone. For one thing, your character was almost completely random in generation, right down to character class (determined by randomly determined nationality)! You could end up a literal beggar or farmer, or a sorcerer warrior-priest, wealthy and powerful.

In the end it didn't really matter as the mortality rate was as high for the noble-born as the peasants. Again, this feels remarkable true to the source material...throughout Moorcock's books the powerful, the wealthy, the wise...well, they all die, sometimes in truly ignoble fashion. All except Elric, who is more a force of nature (a la Galactus) than an RPG player character.

Even the BRP skill system was fairly easy, as skill selection is based on class, and skill level based on (randomly rolled) attributes. Skill use was simple and intuitive, and I found it fairly impossible to get too attached to individual characters randomly created...fortunately enough as they tended to die rather easily.

For myself and my buddy Michael, we found the game quite refreshing, often laughing at an amusing impalement or fall to the death of a character...or being exhilarated when one actually triumphed. But perhaps this was because we were fans of the books, and they informed our style of play. Michael eventually purchased the 3rd or 4th edition of the game which kept the same random deadliness but added actual spells (in addition to sorcerous summonings), a very cool update. He ran a game for myself and a pair of other players and I had a blast...while the other two complained bitterly the whole time. Nope it wasn't D&D. Nope, you may have been born a barbarian hunter in backwater Org...such was your lot in life. They (the other players) hated it; Michael and I thought it was great (and it was nice that he had the chance to act as GM after I had slain so many of his farmer-turned-mercenaries...ha!).

Yeah, fun. I'd have to say my experience with Stormbringer is part of the reason I'm neither offended, nor particularly enthused by the Carcosa supplement. What I've read of Carcosa, with its sorcery and human sacrifice, simply conjurs to mind Stormbringer play. It's not really what I consider D&D, and while I do enjoy that type of play on occasion (bleak, dark, destructive), there are already existing game systems that facilitate it.

Now Chaosium's Elric! game...and every edition of Stormbringer that followed it...effectively sucks donkey ass (to put it mildly). But that's a subject for another post, that I won't spend time on today.